Adam Ingram: Before I start, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our sincere condolences to the friends and families of Lieutenant Tom Tanswell of 12 Regiment Royal Artillery, who died in Iraq last week, and those of Marine Gary Wright of 45 Commando Royal Marines, who died in Afghanistan the week before.
	The RAF's fixed wing troop carrying capability is provided by a mix of RAF aircraft and, when required, by civilian chartered aircraft, which are used during times of peak tasking. We are planning to enhance the RAF's strategic troop carrying and air tanker capability, currently provided by the VC10 and Tristar aircraft, with the future strategic tanker aircraft. We are also enhancing tactical troop-carrying capability with the procurement of 25 A400M aircraft.

Shailesh Vara: May I first associate myself with the Minister's comments with regard to the two very brave men who lost their lives? Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families and loved ones.
	Is it true that owing to a lack of RAF capacity as regards transport those who are serving on the front line and wish to come home for leave sometimes have to wait days before they can do? Does it not add insult to injury that those men should have that time deducted from their leave? I should be most grateful for the Minister's comments.

Adam Ingram: I heard one of my hon. Friends say as an aside that the hon. Gentleman is still learning. I thought that he would have learned the valuable lesson that it takes time to procure new equipment.I mentioned the A400M—I know that the hon. Gentleman supports the programme—but it takes time for that aircraft to be procured and put into theatre. The strategic tanker aircraft is also undergoing its final procurement analysis. The complex programme will ensure that we have a long-term solution for many decades to deal with some of the problems. Is he genuinely suggesting that, given that we do not have those aircraft, we should not use our existing aircraft? I think not. If he believes that they are not suitable and fit for purpose, he is wrong. The aircraft that go into the theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan must have appropriate defensive aids suites, so as to ensure that we get the best support, we have to lift them out in troopers and put them on through a mixture of RAF aircraft or hired civilian aircraft. We are now doing that. We understand the associated problems. We regret every incident when we have failed. However, such failures are not through want of effort or, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, because of clapped-out old kit.

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about our troops. I am sure that all hon. Members share his view. He asks whether I would like any aspects of the engagement with the communities in Helmand province to be improved. I would like the processes to be built upon. The key to that is to let Governor Daud, whom I met last week when I was in Helmand province, continue with the process that he has already started in Musa Qaleh—where he has proper political control—in other parts of northern Helmand, including the Sangin valley and other communities. The process is difficult, but ultimately, Afghan solutions to Afghan problems will deliver the answers for the Afghan people. We should support their properly constituted and elected Government in achieving those solutions.

Andrew Robathan: Notwithstanding the excellent work of our troops in tough conditions in Afghanistan, has the Secretary of State seen the reports in  The Times today that say that, where our troops are pulled back, the Taliban has moved straight back in? Would he like to comment on that?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will have followed the story as it developed last week. Only over the weekend we had reports—public, open reports in the media, which I read—that General Jim Jones, who is known as SACEUR—Supreme Allied Commander in Europe—apologised to President Karzai for the inadvertent casualties created. As he explained it, the Taliban had been using these individuals as a human shield. He clearly put the responsibility on the Taliban and I have heard from our own troops of circumstances in which the Taliban have used innocent individuals as a human shield—indeed, specifically lining up women and children in front of paratroopers on one occasion, not long after we were deployed in Helmand province. They do that because of the effect that my hon. Friend identifies: if there is accidental injury or death caused to innocent civilians, the Taliban will play that out. We are mindful of that fact, which is why we take the greatest care to ensure that there are no civilian casualties.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend identifies one of the reasons why it is important that the world, not just the UK or the developed world, which is specifically represented in Afghanistan, sees through the support and development of the Afghan economy so that the people of Afghanistan will not be exploited, as they have been drug dealers and others in the past and forced to grow poppies for opium. It is a long-term problem and those who understand how it has been dealt with in other countries will realise that we have to build governance, build the rule of law and security and build economic prosperity. Only in that context will very poor people be dissuaded from growing poppy when they are in many cases being forced into it by violence.

Crispin Blunt: Rather than trying to find Mr. Khan's identity, would we not do better to recognise the evidence of our own officers and soldiers, particularly those who have been in discussions with village elders about arrangements in village. They have identified among those village elders potential supporters of the Taliban who they believe have been giving them the once over during the course of the negotiation. Should we not recognise the truth of the situation—that the Taliban are very much stronger six months after we started our deployment in Helmand than they were before?

Liam Fox: Are there not two threats to our relationship with the Afghan people? Governor Daud said last week of British help:
	"Promises to get projects up and running have not been kept and there hasn't been a DFID representative in Helmand for2 months."
	Secondly, politicians abroad have been calling for more action to destroy poppy crops. Do not the failure of DFID and the intention to destroy poppy crops in the short term, the only income for subsistence farmers, risk pushing the local population into the arms of the Taliban and undermining the efforts of our armed forces?

Des Browne: In the first place, Governor Daud is a man who represents his community and consistently asks for more, as indeed almost every hon. Member probably does in relation to their own constituents at one stage or another. It is not surprising therefore that he should focus on what more he wants for his community and not necessarily on what has already been achieved, and a significant amount has been achieved in Helmand province in road building, in other significant reconstruction work, in health and in schools. Indeed, we plan to do much more work, particularly in Musa Qaleh and in other parts of the north, in order to reinforce the deal that has already been struck in that part of the country.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman was wrong about the absence of a DFID representative in Helmand. Last week, I was in Lashkar Gar, where I met and spoke to a DFID representative present on the ground. The challenge is whether the security that exists in the part of the province where we want to do the reconstruction work first is sufficient for us to deploy into those areas people who are not soldiers or troops, for the purposes of reconstruction work. That is a difficult judgment to make. Consequently, we need to reconfigure the way in which we do the construction or reconstruction work, and that is exactly what we have been doing across government. That is why in July I announced the deployment of 300 engineers into Helmand province, and we are beginning to see the work that they can do across the province. That work will build further security. We will then, on that basis, encourage non-governmental organisations and others to build their representation in Helmand, or to come back into the province to do what we went out there to do in the first place. We have, in my view, a programme now in place, principally as a consequence of the work that the Paratroopers did while they were there in regularly overmatching the Taliban.

Michael Jack: I thank the Minister for the update on those numbers. I remind him that the Government have remained consistent to a commitment to buy 232 Eurofighter Typhoons. Given that 72 of those aircraft have already been sold, on a Government to Government basis, to Saudi Arabia, may I conclude that the number that the RAF will eventually be given is 160?

Linda Riordan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Although I congratulate the Government on retaining the name of the Halifax regiment, may I press my right hon. Friend to confirm that the links will continue by giving a funding boost to the army's Bankfield museum in Halifax? That will ensure that the historic links with the town are maintained.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that old regiments, such as the Green Howards and many others, had recognised historical links with cities such as York and towns like Thirsk and Bedale, which helped with recruitment? He must ensure that those links are recognised under the new set-up; otherwise this Government and the next Government will have enormous problems with recruitment and retention in the future.

Adam Ingram: We are very conscious of the golden thread, as it is called. It is for the Army itself, as well as the regimental associations, to keep that light burning. Throughout its history, the British Army has undergone many, many changes, with regiments amalgamated and some disbanded, yet the British Army is still revered as among the best, if not the best, in the world today. If we do not adapt to change and continue to make sure that our people have the best structure and the best support, that golden thread will be challenged, but we have it very much in mind.

Adam Ingram: There was, of course, evidence that Hezbollah used such weapons. Clearly, the Israelis did as well, and we have raised that with the Israeli Government. Why are we opposed to a ban? This subject has been looked at across the range of nations that have an interest in it. If properly used, such weapons are consistent with international humanitarian law. The matter is constantly reviewed. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should take a capability out of the hands of our forces that could result in a situation in which, if they were deployed, British soldiers' lives could be lost. If that is what he is advocating and we ban such weapons, what is the next thing that he will want us to ban? Will he want our soldiers to have no weapons at all?

Bernard Jenkin: Although we have supported the Secretary of State in those two missions, ever since the publication of the strategic defence review before the millennium, when Lord Guthrie went to see the Prime Minister to complain about underfunding of the armed forces, we have consistently pointed out and complained about overstretch and underfunding, and this Government's failure to match the commitments that they have taken on with the necessary resources to meet those commitments. If the Prime Minister is continually to say, "Whatever the commanders on the ground want, we will give them," whose fault is it if he cannot deliver what they want, such as more helicopters and armoured vehicles?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman can point to no example where the Prime Minister or any Secretary of State for Defence, or the Ministry of Defence, in this Government has failed to deliver what our troops on the ground want and need. Of course, we are able to do that because, in cash terms, the annual budget for defence has increased by £5 billion in the past five years. We should compare and contrast that with the cuts of £2.5 billion in the last five years of the last Government. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make assertions about investment in our armed forces, he ought to do so on a proper comparative basis.

Chris Bryant: Experience of the armed forces parliamentary scheme suggests that the British armed forces will do their level best to meet every commitment that we throw at them. Although I disagree with the view that are armed forces are at overstretch, it seems clear that they are at stretch and have been for some considerable time. Would it not ease matters if we drew down our remaining troops in Bosnia, now that the majority of that task is complete, and if some of our European allies took a more forthright role—in particular, if German troops took on a combat role?

David Miliband: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the independent report on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister last July. This morning Sir Nicholas published his comprehensive and compelling report. I believe it is a landmark in the debate about climate change.
	The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly stressed that climate change is an economic, energy, security and political issue, not just an environmental issue. The Stern report shows why this is true. The conclusions of the report are clear. First, climate change is the greatest long-term threat faced by humanity. It could cause more human and financial suffering than the two world wars and the great depression put together. All countries will be affected, but the poorest countries will be hit hardest. Secondly, the costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action. At a minimum, a failure to tackle climate change—the continuation of what Sir Nicholas Stern calls business as usual—will cost 5 per cent. of global GDP. Costs could, however, run up to 20 per cent.of GDP.
	Thirdly, the window of opportunity to reverse the rise in global emissions is narrowing. The science and the economics suggest that to avoid catastrophic climate change, or at least its likelihood, global carbon emissions must peak in the next 10 to 15 years.
	Fourthly, the Stern report shows how the stock of CO2 or its equivalent has risen in the 150 years since the industrial revolution to 430 parts per million, and it continues to rise at around 2 parts per million a year. Stabilisation at between 450 and 550 parts per million would mean at least a 25 per cent. cut in global emissions, and for richer countries with higher emissions, it would mean a cut of 60 per cent. or more.
	Finally, Sir Nicholas makes it clear that climate change is not an insoluble challenge. The technologies to reduce energy demand, increase energy efficiency and develop low-carbon electricity, heat and transport are within grasp. The costs are manageable at around1 per cent. of global GDP. The earlier we act across all countries and all sectors, the more we keep costs down.
	Stern argues for global co-operation and domestic action, so let me set out our response in both areas. First, on emissions trading, Stern argues that we must create a price signal for carbon, in particular through the development of emissions trading schemes around the world. Emissions trading can not only ensure cost-effective reductions in emissions, but drive tens of billions of dollars each year to put developing countries on a path to low-carbon economies. The European Union is a world leader in that area, and a European solution is key to our goals. Today, we are proposing that the EU commits to new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent. by 2020 and at least 60 per cent. by 2050.
	We are setting out our commitment to strengthen the EU emissions trading scheme as the nucleus of a global carbon market. I will be discussing with business and environmental groups on Wednesday how we can develop a unified UK position for phase 3 of the EU emissions trading scheme from 2012. I am sure that we need to secure the long-term certainty of the scheme, to extend it to cover new sectors, especially aviation, and to link it to other emerging emissions trading schemes, notably those in California and other parts of north America.
	Secondly, Stern argues for a stronger focus on technological co-operation, including the doubling of energy research and development support and a fivefold increase in low-carbon technologies. In March, the Chancellor announced the creation of a energy technologies institute, a new public-private partnership worth £1 billion of research and development funding into low-carbon energy technologies over the next10 years. Today, we can announce that two new companies will be joining the partnership, Scottish and Southern and Rolls-Royce, taking total contributions so far to £550 million, half of which has come from the Government and half of which has come from the private sector.
	Stern also identifies a specific need to develop low-carbon transport fuels, which is why the UK has initiated a joint task force with Brazil, South Africa and Mozambique to promote the development of a regional sustainable biofuels strategy in southern Africa. The renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership, which the UK launched in 2003, is now working in more than 40 countries to develop policies and financing frameworks for investment in sustainable energy.
	At the Gleneagles G8 summit last year, the UK was instrumental in establishing the energy investment framework to bring forward increased investment in energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. That was led by the World Bank and other regional development banks. The UK Government, with president Wolfowitz of the World Bank and the four leading regional development banks, are therefore pleased to announce today a partnership with the World Economic Forum and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development to stimulate private sector investment through that framework. President Wolfowitz and the Chancellor will co-host a conference early in February 2007 to kick off the partnership.
	Thirdly, hon. Members on both sides of the House know that action to reduce deforestation, which makes up 18 per cent. of global greenhouse gas emissions each year and which is more than the whole of the transport sector, is important. Forests are of great global importance for climate change and biodiversity, but they are also the sovereign territory of the countries where they are, and only those nations can decide what happens to them. With the Governments of Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, with Germany holding the presidency of the G8 and the EU next year, and with the World Bank and other interested parties, we will be exploring over the coming months how to mobilise global resources for sustainable forestry.
	Fourthly, on adaptation, the review suggests that richer countries must provide financial support to developing countries to adapt to the changes in climate that are already in train. The UK Government are strongly committed to making climate risk reduction key to development activities. Contributions to the special climate change fund, the least developed countries fund and the Canadian international development research centre are additional to development finance and policy as part of this drive.
	In all those four areas, the UK is determined to continue to show international leadership. That drive is strengthened by our domestic leadership. To be the most convincing persuaders abroad, we must be effective contributors at home. Between 1997 and 2005, when the economy grew by 25 per cent., the Government led the way to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions were cut by 7 per cent. We are exceeding our Kyoto targets and are the only country on track to double them. The ambitious commitments in the energy review to take a further 19 to 25 million tonnes of carbon out of the economy will add further impetus to reduce emissions.
	We have now also decided to put in place a legislative timetable to become a leading low-carbon economy. Our climate change legislation will provide a clear, credible, long-term framework for the UK to achieve its long-term goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Bill will be based on four pillars. For each, we will give details at the time of the Bill's publication. In addition, we are determined to promote the widest possible debate in the House and across the country about the contents of the Bill.
	First, the Bill will put into statute the Government's long-term goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050 from 1990 levels. We will also consider appropriate interim targets. We are determined to enhance Britain's competitive position and believe that business in particular will benefit from the long- term framework that is so important for effective investment decisions.
	Secondly, the new legislation will establish an independent body—a carbon committee—that will work with Government to reduce emissions over time and across the economy. We will ensure that the committee's advice is transparent, equitable and mindful of sectoral and competitiveness impacts, including the need to secure energy supplies at competitive prices.
	Thirdly, we believe that targets need to be accompanied by substantive measures if they are to have credibility. Therefore, the legislation will create enabling powers to put in place new emissions reduction measures to achieve our goals.
	The final pillar of the legislation will be to assess what additional reporting and monitoring arrangements are necessary to support our aims of a transparent framework for emissions reduction, including reports to the House.
	The House and the country owe a huge debt to Sir Nicholas Stern and his staff for their outstanding work. His report should be a cause for alarm but also for action. The whole Government are determined to deliver that action, at home and abroad.

Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance notice of it.
	The Opposition strongly welcome the findings of the Stern report. I cannot pretend to have read all700 pages, and I only hope that it has been printedon recycled paper. As the key findings were comprehensively leaked over the weekend, however, it has been possible to get the gist. Sir Nicholas Stern and his team deserve to be congratulated on their forensic and thorough analysis of both the dangers and the opportunities presented by climate change. The report is an important and profoundly serious piece of work.
	In its overall message, Stern's analysis reveals little that was not already known, but it puts beyond doubt the arguments that the Opposition have been advancing for some time, and that the Environmental Audit Committee has been advancing for even longer: first, that the activities of mankind and climate change are inextricably related; secondly, that we do not have much time, although we do have just enough time to take action to head off irreversible and catastrophic changes to the earth's climate; thirdly, that we must decouple economic growth from carbon emissions and move quickly towards a low-carbon global economy; and, fourthly, that the costs of not tackling climate change will be infinitely greater than the costs of taking action now.
	The Chancellor has rightly emphasised the need to put in place an effective, international, market-based system for reducing global emissions. I note that he proposes a new commission to take that forward, for which we have already called. It is good to see him accepting our advice. We have also called for a tougher and wider application of the EU emissions trading scheme as one means of creating a price signal for carbon. Again, it is pleasing to note that the Chancellor has caught up.
	The Secretary of State has finally stopped playing hard to get over our calls for a climate change Bill, and announced that we will have one. I hope that he will confirm that that will form part of the next Queen's Speech, which he omitted to mention in his statement. We look forward to debating the details of the Bill.
	It is good that the Government have accepted the need for a new independent body, which will work with the Government to reduce emissions. But does the Secretary of State expect the carbon committee to set targets based on scientific evidence, as we do, or will the targets be set by Government on the basis of a wing and prayer? I remind the Secretary of State that his party has a very poor record on meeting its own environmental targets.
	I note that the 60 per cent. reduction target is to be put into statute. What about the "interim targets" that the Secretary of State is "considering"? Unless they are statutory as well, they will be in danger of being about as meaningless as all the other targets that have been missed. I see no reference at all to the annual rolling carbon reduction targets for which we, and climate change campaigners, have been asking. Have the Government rejected that proposal?
	The Secretary of State says that the final pillar of the legislation will be
	"to assess what additional reporting and monitoring arrangements are necessary".
	An assessment does not sound much like a pillar. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to an annual carbon budget report in Parliament? That would give him and his successors an opportunity to report on progress, and to set out any new measures that are thought necessary to ensure that carbon dioxide emissions are reduced before putting them to the vote.
	What has the Secretary of State in mind when he talks of "enabling measures"? Will he assure the House that when he introduces any new measures he will do so in an upfront, transparent and open manner, and that the measures will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval?
	There is a real danger that the Government are intending to produce a watered-down climate change Bill, which will do little to impose the externally applied rigour that is needed to change the mindset of Ministers and civil servants. We do not want a watered-down climate change Bill, or a Bill based on four wobbly pillars. We want a Bill that will create a green revolution throughout government.
	The Secretary of State can hardly have failed to notice that his own thoughts on measures to tackle climate change were leaked at the weekend. They included a range of new taxes. It was an interesting wish list, and if the Chancellor accepts any of the Secretary of State's proposals we will of course examine them with care. We have been calling for a rebalancing of taxation to reward activities that do not contribute to climate change, and to bear down on those that do. The fact is that, since 1997, the proportion of tax revenues generated by environmental taxes has fallen from 7.7 per cent. to6.2 per cent. That trend needs to be reversed, but will the Secretary of State assure us that the Chancellor will not see it as a chance simply to hike up the tax burden yet again? We need replacement taxes, not extra taxes. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Chancellor's record on introducing stealth taxes has seriously undermined public confidence, led to widespread and understandable cynicism, and made the job of persuading people of the need for green taxation very much harder?
	We welcome the Stern report, but we are doubtful about the Government's willingness or ability to follow through with effective action. Under Labour, carbon emissions have risen in five of the last eight years, and they are higher now than they were in 1997. According to Stern, the costs of dealing with climate change are increasing with every passing year. Has the Secretary of State calculated how much less expensive it would have been if the Government had acted sooner?
	Is not the main reason for the Government's failure to date that the Chancellor simply has not taken the issue seriously enough? Incidentally, where is the Chancellor? Given that Stern himself said this morning that the issue was far too important to be left to energy and environment Ministers, it is extraordinary that the Chancellor has done exactly that this afternoon.
	The speeches surrounding the publication of the Stern report suggest that, at last, the Government have started to become more ambitious about climate change. If that is true, and if it is followed up with effective action, I shall be delighted. However, we have heard too many grandiose speeches from the Government before to be wholly convinced.
	The Government have dithered for too long. We now need decisions and action: we need to get on with the job.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) sounded like an old record when he pressed his musical metaphor.
	If climate change could be tackled by setting up a committee, successive Governments would have solved the problem long ago. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary again pointed out, many of us who are currently sitting on the Front Bench last week attended a Cabinet committee on energy and the environment, chaired by the Prime Minister, on our international climate change strategy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the be all and end all, although I am grateful for his support for that Government initiative.
	Let me tackle the hon. Gentleman's serious point about annual targets. I know of no economic model that makes allowances for the weather. I have not seen Treasury expenditure plans that make such allowances. That is why annual targets do not make sense and why the Kyoto protocol specifically rejected them in favour of its five-year targets. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman says much about reductions at home—as does the Conservative party—but it is vital to realise that a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in Bangalore is as dangerous as a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in Birmingham. That is why buying our emissions reductions abroad is a perfectly ethical and important way forward, which is not captured in a debate about targets in the UK.
	However, monitoring annually—reporting on, to use the hon. Gentleman's words—our progress towards those targets is a completely different matter. The Government have been committed to that for at least nine months—possibly longer— and it was put into statute last year under the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) promoted. I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be plenty of chances to debate the matter, more often than annually, but that is not an argument for annual targets.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the carbon committee. I said that I would set out the details when the climate change Bill is introduced. As he intimated, there are difficult issues to get right, including the balance between an independent committee and its responsibilities and Government responsibilities. We will present proposals to ensure the transparency and clarity that he seeks.

Michael Meacher: I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In the light of the Stern report, will he accept that the Government have four key responsibilities: first, to ratchet up the contribution of renewables to electricity generation in this country from the current pathetic4 per cent. to at least 25 per cent. in 10 to 15 years; secondly, to require industry to report on its environmental impact year after year; thirdly, to provide for a carbon budget for individual households to assist them in reducing emissions year by year; and, fourthly, to require an overall aggregate reduction throughout the country of3 per cent. a year as the only way to achieve the target of a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050? Does he also accept that the Government should report—every year, I hope, but at least every five years—on success, and, if we have not been successful, on what needs to be done to get back on track?

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend has raised four points. On renewables, I am not sure that he will be satisfied, but we are committed to generating 20 per cent. of our electricity supply from renewables by 2020. I know that my right hon. Friend would like that figure to be 25 per cent. by 2025, but we propose to increase that contribution from 4 per cent. to 20 per cent. within 14 years. In respect of the Companies Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not venture into an already crowded terrain. On individual accounts, he emphasised the importance of offering clarity to people about the consequences of their household decisions. When energy prices are high, there is not only an environmental but an economic win as people improve their energy efficiency. I am certainly committed to that. Finally, as I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), measures to deal with reporting arrangements are now in statute as a result of the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). I look forward to successive debates on those issues.

Michael Jack: In welcoming Sir Nicholas's report and conclusions, may I tell the Secretary of State that is might have been more helpful if the documents to which he referred had been available in the Vote Office ahead of his statement? That would be better than having them relayed to us by the BBC, which reported that its correspondents had read all 38 pages of the summary while Members were simply referred to a website.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee recommended more work on the development of green aviation fuel through bio-energy work. In his statement, he referred to the creation of a group in southern Africa to deal with that issue, but given that South Africa already produces half of its aviation fuel by a process that can produce green aviation fuel, will the group take that work on? Secondly, at the domestic level, what measures will the right hon. Gentleman take to encourage individuals to invest more in energy-saving methods? Many of them, like windmills and photovoltaics, currently have a poor rate of return, so what can he do to improve that?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), is a distinguished former environment Minister. There is a fundamental challenge in the Stern report and it can be simply expressed. For 150 years, we have pumped carbon and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if it had no environmental or economic cost. We have known for some time that it has an environmental cost, but today, the economic cost has been dramatised. Simply put, we need to ensure that, as we move forward, that cost is incorporated into the economic and social decisions that we take. The accounting issues that my hon. Friend raises are important. A range of groups, including the Royal Society of Arts, are looking at personal carbon allowances. That can only be a good thing as we think about how Government, business and individuals play their part in this global challenge.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend has a long and distinguished record in this area. I am happy to inform her and the House that the Government have brought forward some spending that was previously planned for next year to help the low carbon buildings fund, which I agree has proved to be a tremendous success.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are certainly committed to ensuring not just that renewable energy sources that have been developed and are close to the market are increasingly available but also that we pursue sources further away from the market, through the research and development to which he referred. There is often discussion of carbon capture and storage, in which I know that my hon. Friend is interested, given his background, but we are interested in all ways of pursuing low-carbon energy sources.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In the energy review that was published in July, there was extensive discussion both of planning issues and of some of the other barriers to micro-generation and selling into the grid. I can assure him that there is a study going on with Ofgem, the regulator— and, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy assures me, with the Department for Trade and Industry as well—to address those barriers to that sort of renewable energy, which is so important.

David Miliband: As the energy review made clear, nuclear power constitutes just under 20 per cent. of the total electricity supply. We believe that it is right that we start by reducing demand and promoting energy efficiency, but equally, if there comes to be a choice between oil, gas and nuclear, for me, as the Secretary of State pursuing climate change objectives, it is obvious that nuclear has the lowest carbon emissions of those three sources. We have also made it clear, however, that it is not for the public purse to subsidise nuclear investment; public investment should be restricted to renewable technologies that are further from the market. But we are also clear that, in a world where carbon does have a price, the economics of nuclear versus other energy sources changes.

Bob Russell: If the right hon. Gentleman intends to lead by example and practice what he preaches, how confident is he that he will return to the Dispatch Box in a year's time to report that, right across Government, the use of ministerial cars has declined significantly, and the use of public transport has increased significantly?

VIOLENT CRIMe REDUCTION BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO.2)

Nick Herbert: Alcohol disorder zones, which we support, are designed to deal with a serious and growing problem. Only this month, the British crime survey reported that the proportion of people saying that drunkenness was a very big or fairly big problem in their neighbourhood has risen to well over one in five. Of those who report experiencing antisocial behaviour in the previous year, nearly one in 10 say that they see drunkenness or rowdiness every day and more than a third say that they see it every week.
	Of those people worried about drunkenness, most report difficulties with noise and littering by drinkers, but, worse, nearly a third have been troubled by drunks urinating in public or fighting. Indeed, 1.2 million violent incidents are alcohol related. That is half of all violent crime. The Cabinet Office has reported that 61 per cent. of the population perceive alcohol-related violence as worsening and one in five violent crimes takes place in or around pubs and clubs. Nearly 70 per cent. of those crimes occur at the weekend. Nearly half of all victims of violence describe their assailants as being under the influence of alcohol at the time. In our major cities, but also in once peaceful towns throughout the country, decent people's lives are being made a misery by wholly unacceptable behaviour that is too often fuelled by alcohol.
	The measures proposed in the Bill in relation to alcohol disorder zones, under which the establishment from which these problems emanate should contribute towards the costs of dealing with the problem, are the right ones. The Cabinet Office estimated that alcohol-related crime costs the UK £7.3 billion a year in policing, preventive services, processing offenders through the criminal justice system and the human costs incurred by the victims of crime.
	The Lords amendment, which was moved by Baroness Anelay, relates to our concern that the Bill appeared to allow local authorities to pre-empt completion of the action plans that precede alcohol disorder zones, even where progress was being made in dealing with the problem. Lords amendment No. 27 attempts to deal with that problem by preventing an ADZ from being designated if a majority of the steps in the action plan have been put into effect.
	The Government have set out their concerns about the amendment and I agree that, for instance, it would not make sense to prevent a local authority from designating an ADZ simply because a numerical majority of steps, which may be the less important ones, in the action plan have been met. Since the amendment was agreed in the other place, the Government have explained—as the Minister has today—the guidance that they have developed in consultation with the industry, which should address those concerns. In particular, the guidance states that an action plan does not have to be implemented in full, that it should be carefully monitored, that ample warning should be given by local authorities over the eight-week period if they are dissatisfied with progress, and that flexibility should be shown to meet local needs. I understand that that guidance has been sufficient to allay industry concerns and, on that basis, we will not seek to oppose the Government in rejecting Lords amendment No. 27.

Lynne Featherstone: Over the past couple of years, the Liberal Democrats have called for a levy on big late-night venues to help pay for policing and the other costs of alcohol-related disorder. Therefore, we welcome the principle of alcohol disorder zones, because the scheme implements our "polluter pays" policy. We had some concerns about the issues in relation to the action zones and the tarring of the innocent along with the guilty. However, we welcome the extra safeguards that have been put into the guidelines because we were worried about the way in which local authorities might administer the scheme.
	In Committee, we argued that there needed to be more of a causal link between behaviour and who was caught so that it could be established whether a premises or club had contributed to the alcohol-related disorder in a zone. If responsible establishments were caught in an alcohol disorder zone and forced to pay the charge—if they were effectively penalised by the irresponsibility of other establishments—it would be a disincentive for good licence holders to maintain good standards. That appears to be contrary to "Drinking Responsibly", the Government's consultation paper that is targeted at irresponsible premises.
	We, like Conservative Members of the House of Lords, were worried that the intervention trigger that a local authority would use might be inappropriate or premature. Again, the measure is designed to make people behave responsibly, so if we were to penalise those exhibiting good behaviour, we would send the message that there was no point in being an exemplary landlord. Equally, establishments included under the action plan might be fulfilling their part of the bargain, so consideration would be needed not of the numbers, but of who was doing what was required and who was reneging on the agreement for the establishments caught in a proposed alcohol disorder zone.
	The problem could be widespread because the threshold for triggering an alcohol disorder zone is extremely low. It would be difficult to find an area that has not experienced alcohol-related disorder because it is prevalent in this country. We thus thought that it was important that councils were inhibited from moving too quickly or enthusiastically. I would have liked measurable criteria on what constituted a successful action plan. Lords amendment No. 27 would have gone some way towards alleviating concern that a local authority could act pre-emptively. Given the new safeguards in the Government's guidance, however, which will make the industry accept the way forward, Liberal Democrats are happy with the Government's proposal. If we can establish the Government's proposals vis-à-vis the way in which ADZs and action plans will work through the guidelines, Liberal Democrats have no problem with that.

Charles Walker: The introduction of alcohol disorder zones is an extremely good idea—one of the Government's better ideas. In Cheshunt, which I represent, we have a particular problem around the Old Pond area, which, on Saturday nights, can be likened to a war zone. The situation is such that during World and European cup matches, we often have numerous cavalry stationed up at the town hall in case they are required to disperse troublemakers. Fortunately, that was not necessary this year because the publicans around the Old Pond held constructive talks with the police to work out how they could control their clients and customers. That was probably a direct result of the threat of the imposition of alcohol disorder zones.
	Although this might go against some of the views held by those in another place, I do not have much sympathy with the drinks industry. It has done extremely well out of Government legislation over the past year or so. While it is doing well, it is important that it accepts that it has a responsibility to the wider community, which, by and large, does not use its establishments, yet deserves a decent night's sleep and the ability to use the streets free from the fear of being abused, being mugged and having to watch people urinate against brick walls. So I welcome the Government's view. It is useful for my local council to have in its armoury the threat of designating an alcohol disorder zone. My message to Broxbourne council is that if in future it feels the need to apply such an order, it should not hesitate, as it will have my support.

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman—no doubt he will shortly be the right hon. Gentleman—for that whistle-stop cook's tour of the amendments. If I understood him correctly, he referred to a limited extension of the affirmative resolution procedure. Will he advise the House whether there is a new upper limit for the fine, which was £10,000, and, if so, what is it?

John Bercow: Might I extract from the hon. Gentleman a confirmation that in pursuit of that objective, he will be at least deploying one of his usual charm offensives?

Tony McNulty: Someone else once said in this place that when he and a colleague undertook a charm offensive, he was the charm and our colleague was the offensive. I should probably leave it at that, but I take the procedural point about the need to provide Committee members, and indeed Members of both Houses, with at least a framework or outline of any regulation, guidance and elements of legislation following Royal Assent as early as possible.
	Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 47, 61 to 65 and 77 all deal with the issue of imitation firearms and air weapons. I am happy to support Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 47 and 62 to 65, which relate to controls on firearms. Let me briefly explain the most significant controls.
	Lords amendment No. 40 removes a clause providing for controls on the sale of ammunition loading presses—devices that perform the full range of mechanical operations required to reload cartridges. The Government have accepted arguments that such operations can be carried out without specialist equipment through the use of simple tools that are available from any DIY shop. We have already included controls on the sale of primers, and given that it is not possible to reload ammunition without primers, we accept that clause 31 is no longer necessary.
	Lords amendments Nos. 41 and 47 give Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs powers to seize imitation firearms imported in contravention of the controls in the Bill. Although clause 32 makes it an offence to bring a realistic imitation firearm into Great Britain, it does not specifically contain a prohibition against their importation. Amendments Nos. 41 and 47 address that situation by establishing that the goods are liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts. A case in which that was appropriate might concern youngsters returning from a school trip abroad with banned items.
	Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 relate to defences to the ban on sale, manufacture and importation of realistic imitation firearms. Defences are provided for museums and galleries, both public and private, in relation to sales and so on to Crown servants, and for businesses to import realistic imitations solely for the purpose of modifying them to make them non-realistic—for example, for race-starting or dog training.
	Amendments Nos. 48 and 66 increase the maximum penalty for having a blade or a point in a public place or a school without good reason from two years' imprisonment or a fine, or both, to four years' imprisonment or a fine, or both. That forms part of our wider package of measures to reduce knife crime, in line with our manifesto commitment
	"to introduce tougher sentences for those involved in serious knife crime".
	Amendments Nos. 49 to 60, 75 and 76 amend in various ways the power to search individuals for weapons in schools, further education institutions and attendance centres. They prevent a head teacher from requiring a member of school staff to carry out such a search unless they are security staff and provide transparent definitions of school staff for the purposes of this Bill. They require that the other person present when a search is conducted is another member of staff of the school, FE college or attendance centre respectively. We propose that because it is better for the second person present to be someone with a formal duty of care towards those being searched, which increases safeguards for both those being searched and the staff. They change the grounds for a search from "reasonable grounds for believing" to "reasonable grounds for suspecting". That will enable the scope for searches to include a wider range of people. A head teacher who suspects a knife is in their school, but whose information is not strong enough for believing a particular pupil has it, will still be able to search. However, it is important to note that, before searching any pupil, they must always have a suspicion that the pupil may have a knife.
	The amendments enable the National Assembly for Wales to order when powers for FE colleges in Wales come into force. They also reduce the threshold for a constable to exercise his or her powers of entry to a school and search for weapons in section 139B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. By revising that threshold to one of reasonable grounds for suspecting, we ensure that the police power to search in schools is consistent with that of school staff. That will also apply in Northern Ireland.
	I commend the amendments to the House, because by accepting them we will improve the Bill's efficacy and effectiveness.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall make only a short intervention in the debate. I earnestly ask the Minister to reflect on the path of an excellent Bill, for which the Government are responsible, as a result of long campaigning and long negotiation with those who have fought for control of the curse of imitation firearms. It is a good Bill containing some excellent parts.
	One problem now manifest is the concern of many hon. Members that the Bill may be amended by regulation, bringing into play thousands of imitation firearms that accurately resemble real firearms that would otherwise be banned under the Act. I ask the Minister to reflect on the extreme difficulties stemming from a legitimisation of airsoft weapons that, in every way, resemble lethal firearms.
	The Minister says that this is an unobjectionable and harmless activity. It might be so. Some of us might find a game that involves the tracking and killing of other people by adult men to be a strange pastime, but if they wish to do it and if it assists them—I see that it might assist Opposition Members—with whatever problems they have, let them do it. The problem is not what they do; the problem is what they use.
	Sales of airsoft machines are predicated on the machines being exact replicas of deadly firearms. The website of the main organisation involved suggests that it now has 22,000 members. If exemptions are going to be made to allow a group of that size to trade in imitation firearms on the internet or otherwise, a huge part of this Bill will be wrecked before it is enacted. If that happens, hundreds of thousands of people—perhaps millions—who have campaigned or supported campaigns will have to return to the campaigning ground, and an enormous advantage for this Government, which they thoroughly deserve, will be lost. In congratulating the Minister and the Department on the Bill, I ask my hon. Friend to take on board, as I know he will, the real concerns that exist throughout the country about these potential exemptions.

Humfrey Malins: I want to say a few words about amendment No. 48, which relates to knives. As the Minister knows, I sit part-time as a Crown court recorder and as a district judge in courts across London. The single most prevalent crime, which is growing and growing and growing, is that of carrying a bladed article in a public place.
	In Committee, just over a year ago, I quoted some horrifying statistics from a Youth Justice Board survey carried out in 2004, which showed that 1 per cent. of pupils in England and Wales aged between 11 and 16 had at some time in the last year carried a knife in school for offensive reasons, and 2 per cent. for "defensive" reasons. That means that 60,000 of our children had carried a knife in school at some stage during the previous 12 months, which is horrific.
	If Members went to the courts where I sit they would realise the prevalence of the offence of carrying a bladed article in public. They should listen to the witness who says that he or she was so terrified by the glint of the steel thrust at them in the street late at night that they had nightmares for months on end, and dared not go out into the streets for fear of coming across a possible attacker.
	The House has not got properly to grips with the issue of carrying knives. I say to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) that it is all very well to focus on help, guidance and education, but tell that to the person whose life has been ruined by being threatened in the street with a nasty looking knife.
	Although the amendment, which would double the possible sentence for carrying a bladed article in a public place, is welcome, have the Government really got their eye on the ball? They are increasing the sentence from two to four years. Terrific. So shall we now be sending everybody to prison for more than two years? No. The number of people sent to prison for carrying a bladed article in public is extremely low. In the last year for which figures are available, of the 5,000 to 6,000 people convicted for that offence, a paltry10 per cent. went to prison. Almost 90 per cent. of people who carry knives in public know that, if they go to court, they will not lose their liberty. Furthermore, many of that paltry 10 per cent. probably received a sentence of about two, three or four months.
	So why is changing the maximum sentence from two years to four years suddenly considered to be a piece of magic that is the answer to the problem? It is not the answer; the answer to the problem is to enforce the existing law much more thoroughly, and, respectfully, in my view this Government have failed to do that.
	About a year ago in Committee, we talked about knives in schools, and nobody could deny my figure of 60,000 schoolchildren carrying knives, so I asked a parliamentary question: how many prosecutions had there been for carrying knives in schools? Does anyone know how many there were? Out of, perhaps, 60,000 a year, there were only about 12 prosecutions. Is that a sufficient proportion?
	What about the power that the Government gave themselves in the Bill to give teachers the power to search pupils, as if that is a panacea? Teachers have already for many years had powers to bring in the police and say, "I suspect that pupil of carrying a knife, so please search them". So the fact is that that is another aspect of the law that was simply not enforced.
	Much of our criminal law would be improved if we in this House legislated and spoke less, and saw to it that the police enforced the current law more strictly and forcefully. However, let us examine what happened when I suggested a year ago that we should harshen-up the penalties for carrying a bladed article in a public place. As it happened a year ago, I forget if it was me who did that, and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—although I know that I am right. It might have happened in Committee in October last year, or it might have happened on Report, when I was carrying my party's response to the Bill. The Government absolutely rubbished my suggestion that there should be tougher penalties. Let me inform the House of what was the best answer that the Government could give to my suggestion at that time, by repeating a statement by a Minister on knife crime. The Government's approach—and I gently suggest that this will not carry the day—was as follows:
	"It is essential to educate young people about the dangers and consequences of becoming involved in criminality associated with weapon-carrying and the Home Office funds and operates a number of community-based initiatives aimed at encouraging good citizenship and turning vulnerable young people away from crime."—[ Official Report, 3 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 301W.]
	I would love to be able to say to some poor complainant in a court who has had a knife shown at them, "Don't you worry, member of the public, because the Government are going to fund a few initiatives and a few training programmes." No: that is not the answer to this problem. Why on earth did the Government rubbish my approach a year ago—especially as they are, of course, now coming back to it? That is a great shame.
	I have one final message for the Minister. He is a man of the world and a reasonable man, and he knows about the world outside—I know that he does—so he understands that knife crime is a terrible threat. Therefore, he must also understand that we cannot cure this great evil by simply having a little education here, and a little help there, and a doubling of the sentence as well. He must understand that the real way to deal with this problem is to get the police and the schools to operate a zero-tolerance approach to knives. There must be a tough, harsh attitude. We must make it clear to people that knives are wrong, and that if knives are present, they will be punished. Anything less than that simply will not do.

Charles Walker: I certainly did see that survey, and much of the problem stems from the fear of what might happen if we do intervene. There have been some well-publicised cases in the past few months of young men and others with a community-minded spirit challenging local youths and ending up dead. There is also the fear that if one gets into a shoving match with such youths, one might well be arrested by the police and carted off, so better to walk on the other side of the road. However, I welcome the Government's willingness and desire to increase the maximum sentence for carrying a knife from two to four years. It is then up to judges to ensure that that maximum sentence is implemented.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woking made some very important points about schools. If I heard the Minister correctly, a school can intervene if it has reason to believe that a young person is in the possession of a knife. I hope that that does not preclude initiatives such as that in my constituency, where the police have purchased a portable knife scanner. Funnily enough, they do not catch many people with knives going through the scanner, but they do catch a lot of people who see the scanner and leave very quickly in the opposite direction. I hope that, where there is a perceived problem in a school, the police can deploy such a scanner without having to give due warning, so that the school can identify the scale of the problem and ensure that young people carrying knives are identified and the errors of their ways pointed out.
	On the question of people having the errors of their ways pointed out, I hope that the Minister can confirm that people caught carrying a knife or other blade will not be subject to conditional cautions, allowed to plead guilty and then receive a fine. These young people need to understand the severity of their actions, and that can be achieved only by their appearing in front of a county, district or magistrates court. We have got to send a clear message.

Nick Herbert: I agree with the Minister that the amendments are more than just technical, and some of them are on important issues. I shall highlight just four. First, I should mention Lords amendments Nos. 67 and 68 on ticket touting. It was anomalous that the ticket-touting legislation did not apply to football matches. That was a particularly serious lacuna in the law, because the authorities' inability to deal with ticket touting could cause public order issues, as it can compromise arrangements for segregating rival supporters. It therefore makes sense to close that loophole in the law.
	The second amendment that I think is significant is No. 69, which is on "Power of entry and search of relevant offender's home address". We should not allow the amendment to be agreed to without recognising that it gives police significant additional powers relating to the notification requirements for sex offenders, or those who are cautioned for sex offences. The concern is that offenders are seeking to frustrate the process of risk assessment that the police must undertake on them. It is entirely legitimate for us to consider ways of dealing with offenders' attempts to get round the various notification requirements, although the Government resisted doing so for some time. They are dealing with the problem by giving the police a pre-emptive power to enter premises and search the homes of the sex offenders who are on the register, even in circumstances that fall short of suspecting that an offence of whatever kind has been committed. The House should be wary of giving the police such pre-emptive powers. However, safeguards have been built into the amendment.
	First, the police should have a warrant issued by a magistrate to enter the offender's home. Secondly, the application must be made by a senior police officer, whose rank does not fall below that of superintendent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley(Sir Paul Beresford) pointed out, that is a senior rank, and thus a significant safeguard. Thirdly, the constable must have sought entry to the premises in question and been denied access by the offender on at least two previous occasions. Subject to those safeguards, we accept that the wrong that the Lords amendment seeks to address is a serious one. It is extremely important that the authorities are able to monitor sex offenders properly, and it is important for public confidence, so we welcome the additional power.
	Lords amendments Nos. 81 to 104 deal with what Lord Addington described in the other place as
	"one of the cock-ups of history."
	The application of the Private Security IndustryAct 2001 was broader that was intended as, inadvertently, it covers stewards employed by the governing bodies of clubs at sporting grounds. Lord Pendry said in the other place:
	"There is no evidence of criminality or poor standards in stewarding services at sporting events, yet the cost to licence them under the Security Industry Authority would be prohibitively high."— [ Official Report, House of Lords,16 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 636, 634.]
	The provision caused problems when important events were held at venues such as Twickenham, Lords and Wimbledon. We do not want to increase costs unnecessarily, as there is no evidence that those stewards should be accredited to the same standards as other individuals whom the Act was intended to cover. We therefore welcome the removal of their inclusion.
	Finally, Lords amendments Nos. 105 to 110 amend schedule 2, which deals with football banning orders. Some individuals have attempted to make the application of the orders difficult, and have avoided compliance, whether intentionally or otherwise, by changing their name, address or passport details. People should not be able to act in that way, so we welcome the power provided by the amendments. The remaining Lords amendments are consequential and technical amendments, which we are happy to support.

Paul Beresford: I welcome Lords amendmentNo. 69, and I am slightly at odds with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert).
	The Lords amendment is familiar, because in many ways it resembles a private Member's Bill that I introduced, as well as amendments that I tabled in Committee when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was proceeding through the House. The Minister knows this but, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, a police requirement is required because a few predatory paedophiles are among the most devious, unco-operative, persistent reoffenders to appear before the courts. Many of them know that the loophole in the law offers them an opportunity. When the police knock on their door, and ask for admittance so that they can risk-assess them, they just close it. Superintendent Matt Sarti of the Met told me about a case involving an individual who owns a block of flats. Most of the flats are inhabited by single mothers with children, but that individual believes that his front door is the door at the front of the block. The police know from his history that it is extremely likely that he is engaged in skulduggery and paedophile activities, but they cannot enter his flat. They have no reason to issue a warrant, so the Lords amendment is a necessity, because it provides another arm to protect children.
	May I ask the Minister a few questions? First, I am sorry that it has taken so long to introduce the provision, as Conservative Front and Back Benchers have pressed for it for a considerable time. I am relieved that it has been introduced, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained why it has taken so long. Secondly, I have touched on the rank of the police officer involved. The Met is probably the only force with a child protection unit headed by a superintendent. Other child protection units are smaller and, at best, are headed by a detective chief inspector. It is too late now, but if there was an opportunity for second thoughts, it would be desirable to lower that rank from superintendent to chief inspector to provide flexibility, good management and reduced bureaucracy.
	Thirdly, alternatives were discussed with the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) and his officials. There was a simple alternative to the approach that we have taken—it should be a requirement for the risk-assessed individual to show a duty to co-operate, for example, by allowing the police to enter their accommodation and by co-operating in the risk assessment. Lords amendment No. 69 permits the police to enter, but a problem arises, as co-operation could cease. If the individual is difficult and does not to allow them to enter, their failure to co-operate with the risk assessment is guaranteed. The Minister's predecessors and some officials accepted that there was a sensible alternative, so the provision is a missed opportunity. I believe—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the Lords amendment was worded to match legislation that is either pending or has been introduced north of Hadrian's wall.
	All in all, I welcome the provision more strongly than my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs. It is overdue, and it is a necessity. Those individuals are progressively learning that they can buck the law and stop the risk assessment. Now, the police will be able to get in.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that safety is important. There are procedures and safeguards in place to make sure that safety is very much at the front of the minds of those who consider planning applications. I am sure that he would agree that it is necessary to ensure that we have security of supply, because there are obvious consequences if we do not. The importation facility at Milford Haven, and those in other areas, are important.
	On electricity, earlier this year the consultation report showed a generating plant capacity—an excess in capacity—of 22 per cent. in September. The national grid will monitor that level of generating ability. Obviously, unplanned outages, such as those already announced in relation to British Energy, will have some effect on the margin, although at the time of the announcement, it was clear that there were some nuclear plants that would come back into operation. Indeed, some have come back into operation since that time. There is an operating margin precisely to allow for unplanned outages. We are hopeful that electricity supplies this winter will be more than sufficient.
	I said earlier that, clearly, prices have increased. For several years, they were a lot lower than in Europe. Indeed, some of our prices still are lower than those in Europe. However, the gas that is now being sold to consumers—both industrial and domestic—was purchased at a time when the wholesale price was much higher. As a result, prices have gone up. Ofgem will keep a close eye on that to make sure that, when prices start to come down, the gains are passed on to consumers. That is important. It is also important that we see greater transparency and liberalisation in the continental European markets, to drive down costs. That has been a concern of ours. I have made representations to the Commission, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy. There are signs that the Commission is vigorously pursuing those countries where the market is not as transparent as it ought to be.

Alistair Darling: We certainly have to act because, as I said in the summer, we do not have the option of just letting things drift along. Many of this country's generating plants are reaching the end of their lives, so a decision must be taken on how to replace them. As I said in July, our two overriding imperatives are the need to tackle climate change and the need to ensure that we have a secure supply of energy with affordable prices. That means that we must take action now, which was one of the reasons why I said in the summer that nuclear had to be part of the mix. I was critical of the official Opposition for saying of nuclear, "Let's leave it and come back to it later," because I do not think that we have that option now. Anyone who has any doubt about that should read Sir Nicholas Stern's report and find out the urgency of the situation. We anticipated the energy review in the 2003 energy White Paper. We will publish our concluded views in March, and the document will provide a framework that will enable us to proceed and ensure that we have not only greener energy, but more secure supplies of energy.

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Especially in an area like energy, where we are dealing with 30 to 40 years' development, we need to get it right. We need to move at a fairly fast pace, because we do not have the time to spend years thinking about all the possibilities. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as he knows, we are consulting on a number of strands of policy, following the energy review in the summer. Later this week we will publish a document on distributed energy. The strands will all be brought together for the White Paper.
	In the summer I said that the White Paper would be published around the turn of the year, which is political-speak for March. It is rather like the political autumn, although this year the real autumn and the political autumn appear to be moving together for the first time in years. I concluded that we should not publish till March because I want to get all the consultations out, properly considered, and reach a concluded view. That will provide the necessary certainty. Many hon. Members pointed out that more than anything else, the industry wants certainty. We can provide that.
	I am conscious of the fact that this is a short debate and I shall not speak for much longer. All Members in the Chamber will no doubt have read the energy review, so I do not need to go through it line by line. It is important that we make progress. When I spoke last summer, I said that if we can implement the review, we believe that it would bring about a reduction of between 19 million and 25 million tonnes of carbon by 2020. By any standard, that would be a significant contribution to tackling climate change. The other proposals that we set out would also make a significant contribution to ensuring that we have secure, affordable supplies of energy.
	In the past few years, energy has assumed greater importance than it has had in this country for many years. I am sure that we will have a number of debates such as this in the future. It is important not only that we get it right, but that we take action as quickly as possible to tackle climate change, meet the objectives set out in the Stern report today, and make sure that we have secure supplies of affordable energy.

Charles Hendry: As we have said, it is for industry to make decisions. The industry has told us that it can make investment decisions to invest in new nuclear power stations without subsidy, taking account of the full long-term cost and dealing with the long-term decommissioning and waste issues. If the industry can do that, it will be entitled to do so. We will not seek to stop it, but we make no secret of the fact that that is not our preferred option. If we can close the energy gap by using sources of renewable power, we believe that that is the better way of doing it. We also believe that that is what the public want.

Charles Hendry: The Secretary of State is wrong. We have pledged to reform the renewables obligation to make it fairer for all kinds of renewables. The current system particularly favours onshore wind and methane, and it needs to be restructured with additional banding to bring on stream a range of other renewables. Nobody in this country can answer the Secretary of State's question, because no one knows the potential contribution of a range of technologies. If the Severn barrage is viable, it will provide 7 per cent. of our national energy needs. If carbon capture and storage can be made to work, they will give a new lease of life to coal-fired power stations. Let us see what renewables can achieve, but let us not rule out nuclear power as a last resort.
	If I go on for too long, I will prevent other hon. Members from contributing, but I will take more interventions in due course. Many of the new plans worldwide are for gas-fuelled power stations, but just because someone builds a gas-fuelled power station does not mean that there will be gas to power it. Indeed, we face a critical imbalance between demand and supply of gas, and some scenarios suggest that there will be enough gas only for one quarter of planned gas-fuelled power stations.
	The global threat of climate change and the imbalance between demand and supply are why Sir Nicholas Stern and Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, are right to say that doing nothing is not an option and why politicians cannot put off difficult decisions for the next generation to deal with. The next Queen's Speech will include a climate change Bill. I am delighted that the Government have finally decided to introduce such a Bill in the light of Sir Nicholas Stern's report, given that all other parties have been pressing for one for some time. As always, however, the devil will be in the detail, and it remains to be seen whether the Bill includes the measures for which we, and others outside this House, have been pushing.
	Although climate change is clearly one of the biggest challenges facing mankind, we must also be concerned about the affordability and security of our energy supplies. That is why in producing our energy reviews our two aims were to reduce carbon emissions and to secure our energy supplies. We have no doubt that we are on the edge of the greatest technological revolution in energy. Three years ago, the White Paper focused on how we can get more out of existing sources of supply. This time, the energy review examines how we can utilise completely new sources of energy supply, which did not seem feasible even three years ago. As a party, we are absolutely committed to renewables achieving their full potential and to a permanent change in energy policy, which will shift from energy sources that produce carbon to those that do not.

Charles Hendry: I think that this is one of the most exciting developments in the sector. If it can be made to work, it will transform our energy debate. In the context of our science policy, we need to discuss how to encourage "pull-through". I am not talking just about blue-skies research; I am talking about how projects can be led to the market and made viable. We are keen to work with the industry to establish how we can best achieve that.
	Carbon capture and storage can make a fundamental contribution. We must recognise, however, that so far in the development of renewable energy sources, the system has been too one-sided. The key element is the renewables obligation, which needs to be reformed. The Carbon Trust says that it is inefficient and costly, and has failed to bring on new technologies. In its present form—and the Government say that there will be no changes before 2009-10—it provides a significant incentive for methane and onshore wind farms, but it does so at the expense of other renewables technologies. Indeed, the most recent change undermined the use of biomass in co-firing in coal power stations.
	The renewables obligation does not do enough to incentivise technologies such as photovoltaics and geothermal and wave and tidal generation, and it does almost nothing to stimulate research into technologies that are still at the experimental or prototype stage. If we are truly to spark a green revolution, we need to reform the renewables obligation.
	Even the most enthusiastic supporter accepts that wind power suffers from a problem of intermittency. To compensate for that, we need back-up generation. In addition to a big increase in renewable generation, we shall need to maintain a level of conventional generation, using carbon capture and sequestration, to back up the contribution from wind power at times when demand is high and the wind is not blowing. The Government have no proposals to ensure that such backup generation is built or maintained, and that leaves too much to chance. Instead, we must explore the establishment of a new system of capacity payments to establish the contribution that that would make to ensuring that the lights stay on during times of fluctuating electricity capacity.
	The role of Government is not just to help create new opportunities. Government must also remove obstacles that stand in the way of a vibrant renewables sector. We need to change regulation of the energy market, which may mean reform of Ofgem and making it a primary duty for Ofgem to encourage renewable sources of energy. We must sort out the issues of national grid connectivity. It cannot make sense for the national grid to be obliged to connect facilities that will still be stuck in the planning system for years ahead of those that have already been approved. Some projects have been given connection dates 10 to 12 years ahead.
	We need to place much more emphasis on energy conservation, carrying the public with us so that they understand the contribution that they too can make in saving energy; and, of course, we must sort out planning. Planning is at the heart of the problems facing energy. Not only would it drag out the construction of a new nuclear power station for years, but it is holding up onshore wind farms across the country, stopping offshore wind from being connected to the national grid, and preventing new gas storage facilities from being built. We do not have the luxury of time on our side. We will work with the Government to develop a better system that takes account of both the vital importance of local democracy and the wider regional and national interest.
	This is a timely but far too brief debate. There has not been a time in over 30 years when energy has been so much at the top of the agenda, or when the opportunities for new sources of supply have been so great. If those opportunities are to be grasped, however, the Government must truly recognise the challenges as well. They must explain how a "cap and trade" system can be established for carbon, and must start a programme to carry the public with us.
	Since 1997 the Government's actions on these issues have lagged behind their rhetoric, but the issues are too important to be made into a political football. We will work with the Government to find the best policies and direction for United Kingdom energy and climate change policy. We welcome today's Stern report, and look forward to working with the Government where there is common ground to develop the best policies for the years ahead.

Geoffrey Robinson: It might be easier for me to do so when I return to it. Other Labour Members might also wish to intervene then.
	We understand, of course, why the shadow Secretary of State cannot be present, and we make no comment about that; but he certainly applied an entirely different emphasis from that applied by the hon. Member for Wealden. When the hon. Gentleman talked of replacing targets with something that could be measured, we observed the linguistic contortions. Indeed, the Whips are already descending to try to explain the inexplicable—that is, the absence of Conservative policy on this issue.
	I want to pose a few questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has led us so well through the difficulties that we have encountered in facing up to the problems of obtaining competitive, secure energy and diverse supplies while fulfilling our commitments on emissions and meeting climate change requirements. It was good to hear—although I am not sure that I heard my right hon. Friend correctly—that we may still be self-sufficient overall in energy. The figures in the third of the reference tables provided by the Department are for 2003. That is quite a long time ago, given that we are meant to report to the House on these matters annually. Are there any more up-to-date figures? It would be interesting to know whether we already have a significant deficit in our energy requirements.
	I should also like the Secretary of State to tell us more about the prospects for gas, as and when he can. I should like to know what is happening in the western approaches, as well as to the north and west of the Shetlands. There has been a huge rise in the prices of oil and gas. Is there is a chance that they will become increasingly economical? Are the prospects as good as we might reasonably expect? If so, when might we realistically see some entirely new sources come onstream?
	The commitment to maximise renewable sources as far as humanly possible remains in all parts of the House. We are currently extremely well endowed in wind terms in the United Kingdom, in Ireland and off the north coast of Europe. I seem to remember the Secretary of State's predecessor telling us, when he presented the last energy review in 2003 from the Dispatch Box, that we had some 30 per cent. of western Europe's wind resources. That is an enormous potential for us to exploit. It is expensive, of course, and we have a huge task ahead of us in reaching our 20 per cent. target by 2020. As we keep pointing out, that represents a fivefold increase, and we are not achieving such a rate of increase yet.

Mark Tami: My hon. Friend makes the important point that it is a case not just a case of building new nuclear power stations but of building them to compensate for the stations that will be lost. If we are not to have nuclear power and renewables are to fill the gap, it will be a very big gap to fill.
	What does my hon. Friend think of the Opposition parties? While they talk green, they tend to campaign locally against wind turbines whenever they are proposed—particularly the Tories in north Wales.

David Howarth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and I shall explain Liberal Democrats' fundamental opposition to nuclear power later. However, before I do that, I stress that the cheapest, most effective and efficient way to save carbon is through energy saving rather than any specific mode of generating electricity. For that, we must consider a range of policy options, including product standards and building regulations as well as a review of the operation of the energy efficiency commitment.
	In the energy review, the Government were interested in a cap and trade system for energy efficiency, whereby the energy supply companies would be under an obligation to reduce the average amount of energy that their customers use. Companies' current incentive is to sell as much energy as possible to their customers. A requirement to reduce average energy use, coupled with the ability to sell any excess to other companies, would constitute an economically efficient way of operating. I am interested to know whether the Government believe that that system will progress from the energy review to the White Paper.
	Other speakers mentioned decentralised energy, and we should realise the importance of that to the country's energy generating system. Combined heat and power and microgeneration at household and district levels have vast potential—they could provide up to 30 or 40 per cent. of the country's electricity requirements. Even when microgeneration and combined heat and power are gas based, their method of producing heat as well as electricity means that they are more efficient in their use of gas than a system of separating a housing heating system from an electricity generating system. Combined heat and power and microgeneration also reduce transmission losses that occur between the power station and the user. Even microgeneration and combined heat and power that use gas produce a massive carbon benefit by effectively doubling the efficiency of its usage.

Peter Luff: The evidence that the Select Committee has heard so far suggests that the major impact of decentralised generation would not be on the national grid but on local distribution networks, which are perfectly able to deal with the challenge of microgeneration.

Robert Key: I, too, have been privileged to go to Finland and talk to the Finnish Government and Finnish politicians, trade unionists, engineers and scientists. I have seen the plants and gone down the waste facility that is being built. What the hon. Gentleman describes is, if I may say so, only half the story. What the partners investing in the project are contributing is a 60-year cycle of investment, ending in no subsidy for waste disposal, and the ownership ofthe means of production by the consumers of the electricity produced. That is an entirely different scenario, which does not match up with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell the House.

Jamie Reed: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, if we reprocess spent nuclear fuel, we need never import another gram of uranium into this country.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting reprocessing nuclear fuel in a way that no one now proposes to do. If we have learnt one thing about nuclear in the past generation, it is that the reprocessing method is not viable economically. I do not think anyone is suggesting going back to it.
	I suppose that it is true to say that other methods of control may be recommended, although I would not recommend them. US policy seems to be obsessed with the control issue. Dick Cheney said in 2001 that the US should
	"make energy security a priority in our ... foreign policy."
	Of course, that led to a policy of autarchy and of trying to maintain obsessive control over the range of energy sources. It may not have been the only reason for the war in Iraq, but I am sure that it was not entirely irrelevant. In fact, one aspect of the nuclear debate that worries me—hon. Members appear to find it so interesting—is that it seems that Britain is going nuclear as soon as the US changes its policy and goes nuclear. I might come to the conclusion that the decision to go nuclear is simply another aspect of the vassal state attitude of some members of the British Government.
	It also has to be said that the US interest in nuclear also extends to ensuring that its companies receive nuclear contracts from the third world. The interests of Bechtel are involved, I fear—

David Howarth: Well, I have explained the mix that will be necessary, and the hon. Gentleman can read for himself the ILEX report produced for the World Wide Fund for Nature on the subject. If one combines an aggressive energy-saving programme with a wider choice of renewables than we are considering at present, together with combined heat and power, a more efficient way of using gas and a change in the way in which the electricity market is regulated—so that it encourages low-carbon, not high carbon between coal and gas—one can achieve a carbon saving equivalent to what the Government have set out, but without using nuclear.
	The third aspect of security of supply is diversity, and here I come to an important problem with nuclear power. The Government intend that new nuclear power stations will be procured in a group—or a fleet, as it is called—of 10 or more of exactly the same design. They will be ready much more quickly, because it will be necessary to approve only one design, and they will be built by a combined consortium of the major energy suppliers. The problem is that that reduces the amount of diversity in the system.
	Security of supply is achieved by diversifying risk and ensuring that risks are not associated with each other. If the Government have a programme of 10 identical nuclear power stations, they will increase the correlated risk. If anything went wrong with one of those nuclear power stations, they would all be affected. If something were wrong with the design of the plants, they would have to be turned off at once. Nuclear power stations are similar in design, but not identical. Making all the new nuclear power stations identical will lead to the problem the aircraft industry faces—if something goes wrong with a type of aircraft, the whole fleet has to be grounded. That is a fundamental objection to the notion that nuclear power will add to the diversity of supply: in fact, it will detract from diversity.
	Finally, the most important aspect of security of supply—and the one that really works—is interdependence. We need security of supply for those who import power, but there also needs to be security of demand for those who sell it. Russia's problem is not that it intends to use energy supply as a political lever. Its real problem is that Europe is its only serious customer. It needs to diversify its customers. At the same time, we are attempting to diversify the sources of our gas. In Britain, the amount of gas imported from Russia last year was exactly zero—we do not use Russian gas, but the rest of Europe does. By diversifying and turning to the rest of the world for gas supplies, other European countries are worrying the Russians.
	I am concerned that we are developing a sort of Russia phobia in describing the relationship between us, which should be one of interdependence within international trade. However, there are barriers. The obvious barrier to developing an interdependent and free relationship is that Russia and, indeed, Ukraine, are not even members of the World Trade Organisation. Russia also needs internal liberalisation—Gazprom is a state majority-owned company. However, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones and we can hardly lecture the Russians on liberalisation if Europe's market is not liberalised.
	The problem in the European market is not simply a question of the French and the Belgians refusing to liberalise; it is a problem about the relationship between control and interdependence. Regulators and Governments in those other countries are so concerned about the question of control over gas supplies that they think that it is more important than liberalising the market. Last winter, we saw very high prices for gas. British companies were willing to pay those prices, but they could not obtain gas at any price. The reason for that is that the gas was controlled by state-controlled companies in which officials do not make their careers by making money for the company, but by ensuring that gas is under the control of their company and Government. We need to negotiate the liberalisation of the European gas market, and the Government are doing so to some extent. However, they need to recognise that the obsession with control—from which we also suffer—is a fundamental problem.
	The first essential step is transparency. If we do not know how much gas is held in other countries, there is little else we can do. Therefore, I urge the Government to get on with that aspect of negotiation.
	The issue of security of supply is not simple, and I have held the House up for a long time largely in an attempt to demonstrate that it is not simple. The Government have adopted several measures that should be praised. Their attempts to encourage better gas storage and the liberalisation of European gas markets are indeed the right way to go. However, we must understand our own position. If it is fundamentally one of worrying about control, we will undermine our efforts to reach the situation of international free trade and interdependence, which will be safest in the long term.

Bob Blizzard: I completely agree. I have never seen such statements in annual reports, although I have seen lots of others, including those blaming the Government for things—but nothing about energy efficiency and costs. On that point, I looked for guidance in the local government White Paper, which includes some encouraging statements, but they need to be developed further to direct local authorities into the way of energy efficiency.
	Energy debates are often stories about contending energy sources. We have heard some of them tonight, with pro and anti-nuclear speakers. In the past, there have been pro and anti-wind speeches; I remember an Opposition Member describing wind turbines as something from "The War of the Worlds". My contention is basic: we shall need all those sources. In the long term, the world will need all the energy it can find. Although nothing is running out at the moment, in the sense that it is about to disappear, the big story of the past five years is the realisation of the enormous increase in demand from more and more developing countries, which enables us to comprehend more clearly what we always knew: the number of energy sources is finite. We can now see that even more clearly, even though they are not about to run out tomorrow. That has an enormous impact on the price of oil, which has dragged up the price of gas.
	The question we have to address is not which energy source to use—we would be foolish to rule any of them out—but when to use the various sources and what the phasing and the mix should be. The energy review takes a balanced approach to security of supply in those terms. It contains some good instruments for bringing various energy sources to the marketplace, but it is difficult to ensure that those instruments are calibrated exactly so that we achieve the mix we want, although I hope that we have done so.
	The renewables obligation gives us a strong incentive and is worth a subsidy of £1 billion a year. The proposal to tweak it and to bring currently more expensive renewable sources such as offshore wind, tidal and solar closer to the market and make them less expensive to develop is welcome, especially in my part of the country where we are putting a lot into the development of offshore wind. Recently, I was able to take my hon. Friend the Minister for an aerial view of Scroby sands—the first truly offshore wind farm. Afterwards, in Lowestoft, we looked at the country's largest onshore wind turbine.
	The rise in oil and gas prices, along with the provision of better planning procedures and clear policy decisions on waste, make nuclear energy much more possible and more attractive to investors. Developing the EU emissions trading system, by placing a higher value on carbon and including carbon capture and storage, along with the Government's commitment to secure amendment to international treaties such as the London convention, sends a positive signal about carbon capture and storage technology. However, even with those instruments and policies, if the investment flowed only one way, or only one or two ways, and did not give us the mix that we wanted, what could we do? That question still intrigues me.
	The huge problem that underlies all the ways of producing energy in the UK that I have been talking about is our planning system. At present, it is impossible under our planning system to deliver within a reasonable time scale almost any large item of infrastructure, whether for energy or transport, which cannot give investors any confidence at all. Yes, we give everybody a say; yes, we enable interest groups to derail projects; but I am afraid that our current system takes little account of overriding national need, and we are now in a situation of overriding national need in respect of energy generation. Our planning system has dogged wind turbines—both onshore and offshore—grid connection installations, gas power stations and gas storage, and that is before we even address any possible further round of nuclear power stations.
	A few years ago we tried to make some changes through the Planning and Compulsory PurchaseAct 2004, but those of us who wanted change were beaten back. I am pleased that in this debate there has been agreement in all parts of the House that we need to make some changes. Those changes will be a major challenge for the next Parliament. If we are serious about meeting our energy supply challenges and addressing climate change, we will have to revise our planning system so that we can generate sufficient capacity in the ways that we need to.
	I want to look at this issue in an even wider context, because an even bigger issue is staring us in the face in terms of energy policy across the world, and I think that today, with the Stern report, it strikes us between the eyes. If we read all the reports of all the expert bodies, and all the energy outlooks and other scenarios, they all tell us the same thing: whether we like it or not, we will be using fossil fuels for a very long time to come. Whatever we do on energy saving and renewables, and regardless of whether we go nuclear, it is a fact that we will be using fossil fuels for a long time. We need them to keep the lights on. I cannot believe that countries that own them will leave such valuable commodities in the ground and say, "We are not going to exploit them" and, as we know, they will not run out for quite a long time.
	In its report of March this year, our Environmental Audit Committee referred to
	"forecasts which show increasing use over the next 30 years of fossil fuels, especially in developing countries."
	Those forecasts come from bodies even more eminent than that Committee. Let me quote the intergovernmental panel on climate change:
	"Most scenarios project that the supply of primary energy will continue to be dominated by fossil fuels until at least the middle of the century."
	The International Energy Agency estimate of what that proportion would be by 2050 varies between 70 and80 per cent. Commissioner Piebalas in Norway—the conference in Norway in the summer has been referred to—gave the following figures for Europe in 2030: oil supply will make up 34 per cent. of our energy, and gas a further 27 per cent.
	What we are addressing is major fossil fuel use to 2050 and beyond under all scenarios. Yet by 2050, we want to have—and need to have—cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. If we do not do so, it will be too late. If we want to escape the permanent damage of climate change and the environmental and economic disasters that have become even more stark as a result of today's Stern report, we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels as we are currently. The answer that we have to face up to is carbon capture and storage. That is the only way of squaring the circle between fossil fuel use and addressing climate change. I believe that getting on with carbon capture and storage is the most urgent thing that we need to do.
	The Treasury has carried out a recent consultation, and we are looking for a response in the pre-Budget report. In its energy policy, the European Union aims to make fossil fuel plants capable of cost-effectively delivering near-zero emissions of CO2, or to be in a position to include CO2 capture systems. It set up a fossil fuel power plant technology platform to try to achieve that.
	We learned in Norway in the summer—the Norwegian Energy Minister emphasised it—that it is now a political imperative in Norway to have carbon capture and storage up and running by 2014, so that Norway can begin to use gas to generate electricity. It has never done that before, but now finds that it needs to do so.
	There are some powerful CCS movements, and we in the UK must not duck away from it. The ability to store CO2 in the depleted oil reservoirs of the North sea—therefore recovering even more oil—thereon storing the carbon in saline aquifers, and capturing all that from one of the greatest concentrations of CO2 production in the world, which is around north-west Europe, are better conditions than we could find anywhere. That view was endorsed by the Science and Technology Committee.
	Owing to that situation, the UK has the opportunity to be a world leader in such technology, which could maintain security of supply and tackle climate change. We desperately need to develop and support a commercial demonstration project, and we can do so. For example, BP has been developing its DF1—decarbonised fuels 1 project—linked to its depleted Miller oilfield. It has already invested £20 million. It needs to decide by the end of the year whether to invest £600 million more. It has made it clear that the scheme will require the
	"carbon reduction benefits it brings to be remunerated via policy initiatives and incentives."
	However, it estimates those incentives
	"to be equivalent to or less than those currently available to no-carbon options such as renewables."
	I do not expect the Treasury in the pre-Budget report simply to get out its chequebook and sign an open cheque, and I do not expect BP to do so either, but we have genuinely to take carbon capture and storage forward, and there will be a cost to that. I have seen lots of costs bandied about for CCS, offshore wind, and for nuclear and other kinds of technologies and sources. Carbon capture is broadly comparable to other sources that are more expensive than conventional generation. As we have been reminded today, the costs of doing nothing are far greater.
	I have spoken at length about CCS, but that does not often get a full airing in the House, although I am pleased to learn tonight that more people are talking about it. All the expert reports tell us that the technology exists—that there are no real technological obstacles in the way. I mentioned the IEA. It sees a very important role for CCS in the future, as well as for renewables and nuclear. Climate change is a challenge, but it also produces some opportunities. CCS is an opportunity for the UK, but what we need is some urgency and some decisiveness.

Peter Luff: It is a pleasure to follow the wise and good-natured speech of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), and I was pleased that he put emphasis on carbon capture and storage. Perhaps I am a little puzzled that the Treasury is conducting a review, and not the Minister for Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry, but we look forward to the publication of the pre-Budget report, when it will appear.
	As Members have said, this is an apposite day on which to discuss energy, as the Stern review has been published. I wish to take this opportunity to make a public apology to the witnesses who were due to come to the Trade and Industry Committee this afternoon—the Energy Networks Association and the Energy Savings Trust—to discuss local generation. We postponed their meeting until tomorrow to enable Committee members to participate in this debate. That means that a knock-on apology is required to the council in Woking, where we were due to go tomorrow morning to look at the excellent work that council does on encouraging micro-generation.
	I am a bit constrained in what I can say, as I am Chairman of the Committee, as we are in the middle of producing a couple of reports: one on micro-generation, which I hope will reach a conclusion shortly; and another on security of gas and coal supplies, which we will be reporting on shortly. Nevertheless, I am delighted that we are having this debate and that the Secretary of State indicated that there will be more such debates to come. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), I feel that it would have been good to have a full day's debate, because this is one of the most important issues facing our country.
	Two policies—competitiveness and energy—lie at the heart of the Department of Trade and Industry's agenda. The current Minister for Energy has had responsibility for both energy and pensions in his time, and both are absolutely key issues. They are both hot potatoes, and I should say in a spirit of consensus that energy is currently in very good hands.
	When it eventually appeared in July, the review document—not the precursor consultation document on which it was based—which had the flavour of a Green Paper, was broadly very good. Although it promises a lot more consultation on various issues, it was, on the whole, a very readable and engaging document. I read it through at one sitting, which must make me some kind of sad anorak. However, I should appreciate it if the Minister explained pages 180 to 181, which deal with the consultation and the policy for new nuclear build:
	"On some sets of assumptions, the nuclear case is positive; in others, negative, so a judgement has to be made about the relative weight to be given to the various scenarios. In making such a judgement, it is important to note that probabilities associated with many of the various states of the world are endogenous rather than exogenous, and depend on policy decisions."
	So there you have it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as clear as mud.
	The flavour of our debate should be one of urgency because there are urgent questions to address—relating not just to climate change, but to keeping the lights on—but there is no need for panic. I am glad that the Secretary of State is taking a little longer to get the White Paper out. March is a good deadline, which probably means June in parliamentary language; let us hope that the Department sticks to March. When the Minister came before my Committee, he was a little reluctant to tie himself down to a date. I was glad that, last week, the Secretary of State did and that he repeated that date today. So we will pencil March into our diaries.
	One of my key messages is indeed that we really do not need to panic. Following a seminar two weeks ago on energy and the environment, the director of the Ditchley Foundation, with the help of a group of extremely distinguished experts from around the world and this country—including, I am glad to say, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State—and many others besides, produced a very good summary of the situation. It states:
	"Most participants agreed that there was no particular problem about the supply of energy if the world remained reasonably organised."
	It proceeded to discuss the individual sources, saying:
	"Renewable energy sources would make a contribution, though in the medium term not a huge one".
	That is realistic. It continued:
	"Nuclear energy, while unlikely to become the environmental answer because of its other downsides"—
	that is an interesting conclusion—
	"would form an increasingly important part of the mix if improved technology on safety and efficiency was taken into account. Demand would rise, but in theory there was no shortage of supply. In other words, it was all about reducing carbon."
	There is a lot of sense in that, but in the UK context the challenge is not just to reduce carbon but to ensure investment in new power station capacity in time, as other power stations—not just nuclear, but coal—go off-line.
	In addition to not panicking, three other key messages have come through in other speeches this evening. The spreading of risk is always a good maxim and is absolutely central to the debate about energy supply. However, too much of our policy on carbon emission and the contribution of electricity generation to it has focused on industry. Industry has been made to bear an awful lot of the pain associated with carbon reduction in the last few years, which has an effect on UK competitiveness. Not enough has been done on households and transport—two other key areas for carbon reduction. I hope that, as the Government follow through the conclusions of the Stern report, the burden will be shared rather more equitably than it has been in the past.
	There are two policy instruments that matter and that have already been highlighted in this debate. Whether we are talking about renewables or nuclear, the two key issues are carbon trading—getting a good, predictable price for carbon in the medium term—and planning. Those are the two big games in town in developing an energy policy that will actually survive.
	I had intended to spend some time looking at the gas sector's capacity, but that issue has already been covered quite well in this debate. The bottom line must be that this winter is again challenging, although probably not as challenging as last. After that, the new capacity coming on line—import infrastructure and gas storage—should give us considerable comfort. In the next year or so, such new capacity will include Langeled South, Statfjord Late Life, BBL, South Hook LNG, Dragon LNG, and the expansion of the interconnector and of the Isle of Grain. Also under consideration are Teesside LNG and Canvey Island LNG, which were mentioned earlier, so a lot of import capacity is coming on.
	Of course, we in this country are not used tobeing gas importers—it is a new phenomenon for us. Much of the world has become accustomed to that, however. The run-down of the North sea may have happened a little faster than we expected, but we always knew that it was going to happen. My view is that we should be reasonably relaxed about our dependence on imported gas.
	I turn to some of the major long-term issues arising from last December's report on the security of gas supply. Unsurprisingly, liberalisation of the gas market in Europe has featured very prominently in this debate. I share the view—expressed, I think, by the Secretary of State—that the Commission is working very hard indeed to liberalise the market, but we should not hold our breath for any short-term gains in that regard. There will be a huge struggle between the Commission and the member states, who will want to hang on to their long-term contracts. To hope for some kind of quick fix is to delude ourselves.
	We need to be more honest about the UK market itself, which is not in fact that functional. It is insufficiently liquid because no one is willing to risk selling short. Producers have been scared off by Enron, for example, and professional risk takers such as hedge funds are not interested in a market that is so small. So the UK market is not working very well and will not do so until the European markets have been liberalised.
	I want to say a brief word about the consequences of rising energy prices in the UK. Historically, they have been low, and the recent catch-up is perhaps not that surprising, but painful for many people living at the economic margin. The Government have focused their attention on the impact on pensioners through the winter fuel payment, but the Committee has repeatedly drawn the Government's attention to the fact that other, non-elderly vulnerable groups also need help in dealing with rising fuel prices. I hope that they will have more to say about that.
	In turning to the main issues arising from the Committee's evidence, I return to my point about the spreading of risk. We are being repeatedly told that diversity is security, and that message is very clear. However, the market just will not deliver such diversity without the two changes to which I have already referred: a predictable planning system and a more predictable long-term market structure for carbon pricing. I do not like to add to the embarrassment that I caused my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden during my earlier intervention on him, but I genuinely believe that my own party's proposals on carbon pricing—I am trying to be objective here, as Chairman of the Select Committee—are rather more robust than the Government's. I am delighted that the Government are holding out the prospect of going further. To rely on the multilateral mechanism of the EU emissions trading scheme is a little over-optimistic.
	The Committee recently concluded its work on nuclear power, and the Government responded to its report. I am not sure whether the report has been published, but it is certainly authorised for publication. The Government's response to it is constructive and helpful, even when it disagrees with the Committee. I used to be quite enthusiastic about nuclear, but during our Committee's inquiry I became a little more cautious, although I remain convinced that, broadly speaking, we need to replace our current nuclear capacity.
	I caution against a too heavy dependence on nuclear, however. As has been said, it is comparatively inflexible. It provides base load electricity, and therefore is a price-taker, rather than a price-setter, and, because of large plant size, significant reserve capacity and grid reinforcement is required if the temporary loss of a nuclear plant is not to cause major disruption. That is not mere theory; such disruption has happened. For example, a serious outage affected 4 million people in southern Sweden and eastern Denmark, and blacked out Copenhagen, on 23 September 2003. That was precipitated by the failure of a nuclear generating plant because of a cooling system problem, and it caused subsequent problems for another nuclear plant. In addition, a collapse of the transmission system in the north-east of the USA and southern Ontario in August 2003 required the shutdown of all nuclear plants in the system. There are problems to do with over-dependence, particularly on the larger, more powerful new generation of nuclear power stations that might be introduced.
	I tend to take issue with my party's Front-Bench spokesmen on the subject of our dependence on imported gas. There has been a lot of talk about Russia and I can understand why, but gas from Russia currently provides a very small percentage of the supply to the UK—it is a maximum of 4 per cent. We should bear in mind the other countries that we take gas from; Norway, for example, is not exactly politically unstable. In addition, the North sea will have lots of gas for a considerable time yet. Although it cannot meet our needs—we cannot export gas—there is a lot there, and the point is that it needs to be sold. The diversity of the current import infrastructure, which involves sources from around the world, gives me considerable confidence, and we can be reasonably sure of a continuing supply of gas. I am pushing my luck a bit, because we have not actually considered our report on the subject yet, although we will do so shortly.
	People say, "The pipelines will have to come all the way from Siberia", but it does not work like that. In a particularly interesting evidence session, Gazprom made it clear to our Committee that the gas that it would import to the UK is likely to come in the form of swaps with other gas producers, such as liquefied natural gas cargoes. That is how the system works. For those reasons, I am reasonably optimistic about gas. Norway wants to recoup its investment by sending gas through the Langeled pipeline. The Qatar Government have invested heavily in the facility at Milford Haven, and will want to use it. Gasunie has committed to a 10-year contract supplying gas to Centrica through the Balgzand to Bacton pipeline. All of that does not necessarily mean that there will be no problems this winter, but it does mean that, in the medium term, gas is a reasonably secure source of supply. I would have liked to discuss coal, but in view of the time and the number of colleagues who wish to speak, I will not, except to say that I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to try to explore what is inhibiting the development of the UK deep coal mine industry.
	The Committee is currently investigating the issue of microgeneration, or whatever we want to call it. The term "microgeneration" is curiously unhelpful, because it conveys a sense of producing electricity, and that is only part of what local energy production does. In fact, I think that the most low-hanging fruit is to be gained— apart, of course, from improved energy efficiency, which is the single biggest way in which we can improve our security of supply and meet our carbon dioxide targets; but that is a given, so I will not labour the point—by exploring the issue of heat. I made that point to the Minister when he gave evidence to our Committee. The driver is not the fact that people want to behave in a saintly way and save the planet, much as they may want to, but the rising price of gas, which is forcing people to consider how they can use domestic fuel sources more efficiently.
	Like the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), I am having a condensing boiler installed at home, and work began on it today. That is because I need to save a lot of money on my gas bill, and although a condensing boiler is an expensive upfront cost, there are significant long-term paybacks. Solar water heating presents much greater opportunities than people realise, and I think that the Government's documentation of the payback periods for that are rather pessimistic. There are the mysterious-sounding ground source heat pumps, too. For a long time, I thought that they had to do with thermal energy coming up from rocks underground. I now discover that they work by making a garden into one big solar panel, and as long as the garden is at a temperature above absolute zero, heat will be produced for households. Ground source heat pumps have a particular place in new social housing schemes. Where they are used, pensioners would not have any energy bills for large periods of the year, or possibly at all.
	Too many of our discussions are either/or debates—one has to be in favour or nuclear or microgeneration, and in favour of distributed or centralised systems. That is nonsense. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made it clear in his substantial contribution that it will probably be 30 to 40 years before microgeneration can achieve its potential—we will test the Energy Saving Trust on that tomorrow—so we need to replace the current grid and distribute energy from those more conventional power stations. It is not an either/or debate—we want to spread our risk and do everything else that we can.
	Finally, I am tempted to enter the debate on fusion, about which the Committee is reasonably optimistic. As has been said, optimism is the fuel of much of this debate, but fusion is a serious prospect, providing almost unlimited supplies of energy that can be used to produce hydrogen for the transport sector and so on. Leaving fusion aside, decentralised energy has been described by hon. Members as the 21st-century energy solution. We often reinvent the wheel because, in fact, it is the 19th-century energy solution. We are simply rediscovering our roots—the Minister will be familiar with the parallel, because I suggested it to him when he appeared before the Committee. I live in Worcester, and in 1894 Worcester city council transformed Powick mills on the Teme, adjacent to the bridge where the first battle of the civil war was fought, into a combined steam and water-driven hydro-electric facility. The experimental design was the first of its kind, and electricity from that source provided about half the city's needs until 1902, when Worcester's coal-fired power station came on-stream. Powick—a micro-hydro scheme—continued to generate energy until the 1950s. If I have one criticism of the Government's micro-generation strategy it is the fact that it plays down the potential of micro-hydro schemes in England.They can work there, just as they can in Scotland and in Wales.
	I have spoken for too long. I apologise for detaining the House, as other hon. Members wish to contribute. I welcome our debate, and I hope that there are many more such debates in future on this very important subject.

Michael Meacher: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), whose speeches as Chairman of the Select Committee are wide-ranging, extremely well informed, sound, honest and frank. I want to concentrate on a narrower point, and I will not necessarily come to the same conclusions as he did.
	On the day on which the Stern report on the colossal economic costs of global economic warming is published, it must be stated at the outset that the subject of our debate—the security of energy supply which, as we all accept, is crucial—is only half of the debate. The other half is the need to do absolutely everything in our power to prevent climate change and mitigate its effects. Fortunately, the direction of the policies needed to meet both objectives is the same. Approximately 40 per cent. of the UK's primary energy supplies come from gas; 33 per cent. from oil; 17 per cent. from coal; only 8 per cent. from nuclear; and just 2 per cent. from renewables and other sources. That position is not sustainable in the long term. According to a broad consensus of expert opinion, global oil supply will peak, if it has not already done so, in the next five to 10 years, but demand, driven by frenetic growth in China, India and other major developing countries such as Brazil, will result in rising prices, probably in excess of $100 a barrel within a few years. Sharp price hikes will be caused by international events, whether war or terrorism, and by an increasing shortage of spare refinery capacity.
	Furthermore, UK production of North sea oil has long since peaked, and is fast declining at a rate of between 4 and 6 per cent. a year. We are once again in the uncomfortable position of being net importers of oil. We therefore need, as far as possible—I accept that things will not happen quickly—to reduce our dependence on oil, which is a major, if not the major, source of greenhouse gas emissions. Similar considerations apply to gas. Gas prices will certainly remain high, and will steadily rise in the medium to long term. We are net importers, too, of gas which, as has often been said, comes from relatively political unstable countries such as Russia, Algeria, Libya and Iran, so it is not sensible or prudent to allow our dependence on them to increase. Again, we should seek to reduce our dependence on gas wherever possible.
	Coal, by contrast, is an indigenous energy source, and significant supplies will be available in the UK for several decades if not centuries. However, of all the fossil fuels, coal produces the most greenhouse gas emissions, because it is virtually pure carbon. There are two ways in which we can address that, which is beginning to happen. One is by equipping coal stations with fuel gas desulphurisation to meet the requirements of the EU large combustion plant directive. My understanding is that some three quarters of coal power stations are now being equipped with such plant. The other technique—my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) spoke forcefully about this—is the development of new carbon capture and storage. Unquestionably, that technology has promising potential, but it has to be said that, as yet, there is no proven prototype in existence. The essential requirement is that the carbon can be stored indefinitely. That is an exacting and demanding requirement, but we should certainly seek to develop that technology.
	Those limitations, in various forms, on the utilisation of fossil fuels have led the Government to conclude that a new round of nuclear build is therefore necessary to fill the gap as the Magnox and AGR reactors are steadily phased out and the nuclear contribution to electricity generation is reduced, as we are repeatedly told, from about 20 per cent. now to, it is alleged, some 7 per cent. in 2020 or shortly after.
	That argument is flawed on a number of counts. First, the so-called gap is likely to be far less than is alleged. In September of last year, British Energy reviewed the Dungeness B nuclear power station and I understand that it is now investing to extend the life of the power station by 10 years. British Energy is also reviewing six other nuclear power stations for exactly the same purpose. Undoubtedly, some of those will be closed, but it is a reasonable expectation that a number will be invested in to give them some further extension of their life. Similarly, fitting desulphurisation plants to coal station chimneys will also reduce the gap significantly.
	Secondly, nuclear plants—on this point, I disagree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire; this is a contentious issue—have well recognised disadvantages that are difficult to remedy. In its report at the time of the first energy White Paper three years ago, the performance and innovation unit—the No. 10 strategic unit—calculated that, on its best estimate, by 2020 nuclear would be about twice as expensive as wind power. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. I am saying that that was its calculation.
	There is also the unresolved problem of what to do with the huge and mounting piles of nuclear waste. It is reckoned that, by the end of this century, there will be as much as half a million tonnes of some of the most toxic intermediate and high level waste. In relation to CoRWM, it is true that the problem is more political than technical, but to say that it is political does not get over the problem. The question is, where is the waste going to be stored? Governments from both parties have repeatedly tried to resolve the problem, but it remains, at least at the moment, as insoluble as ever.
	The cost of decommissioning and waste management for existing nuclear plants, let alone new ones if we go down that route, is already calculated by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to be more than £75 billion. That is a colossal figure. It is about 7 per cent. of our gross national product.

Michael Meacher: I do not think I was referring to "Sea Wind East", but I will discuss the matter with my hon. Friend afterwards and show him my source. In arguing whether or not such a goal is possible, the key point is what Germany, Denmark and Spain have done. They are the leaders in wind power. Because of our offshore location, we have far greater wind power capacity in the UK than probably the whole of the rest of Europe put together. We are using only a minute amount of it.
	Finally, microgeneration is probably the most promising new technology. The Energy Saving Trust estimates that by 2050 it could provide 30 to 40 per cent.—I am quoting the trust's figures—of the UK's electricity needs and help to reduce carbon emissions by some 15 per cent. a year. But that will not happen without a major Government programme of incentives. A major and rapid expansion of renewables, including microgeneration, plus, as other hon. Members have said and I endorse, a major targeted programme of energy conservation to counter the prodigious waste of energy in both the industrial and the domestic sector, is the only assured long-term route to energy security on the scale required, and at the same time it can meet the UK's commitment to a 60 per cent. reduction at least in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which is a bottom line requirement.

Robert Key: My constituents in Salisbury and the towns and villages of south Wiltshire derive almost all their energy from the national grid. Virtually no electricity is generated in south Wiltshire. I say virtually because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), we had micro-hydrogeneration 100 years ago in Salisbury in the town mill. That scheme was replicated in a number of locations up and down the Avon valley and the Woodford valley. Some enterprising people are considering it again, but it can never be of more than marginal significance as a means of energy production. Some people have tried wind energy—wind turbines—on their houses. Some farmers have looked into the possibility of wind turbines on the top of the downs. Fortunately for the sake of the landscape, the Ministry of Defence has intervened to point out that all the low-flying areas are not compatible with wind energy.
	We must ensure that we balance the needs of the fourth largest economy in the world with the global and national objectives and national interests of the United Kingdom. I was delighted when the Secretary of State, opening the debate, spoke of the compatibility of being pro-growth and pro-green. I was delighted that in his speech from the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) spoke ofthe common ground and the fact that energy was top of the agenda. I was less impressed by the contribution from the Liberal Democrats, notwithstanding the fact that they have a distinguished fellow of my college in Cambridge as their energy spokesman. That is an enormous improvement, if I may say so, in spite of his ingenious intellectual contortions in his energy policy—better than previous Liberal Democrat spokesmen, who have always ended up by saying, "We'll rely on wind and renewables and sustainable energy, and if it doesn't work we'll import nuclear electricity from France." There has been some progress.
	On the question of energy supply, the Government have dithered over the past nine years. They have dithered on nuclear, by saying no, then maybe and now yes. To some extent, they have reneged on the dash for gas, which they now think is dodgy in terms of energy security. They have tripped up on planning. In the early years of this Labour Government, they introduced excellent planning legislation, but then they encountered difficulties with their proposals on infrastructure and power stations, which they abandoned. Now they are revisiting those proposals—what a waste of time—and they have failed to meet their targets. It is important, sensible and serious if the Government and the Opposition agree on these issues for the right reasons, but it is dangerous if they agree for the wrong reasons. I hope that the Opposition will not let the Government off the hook.
	One trend running through today's debate is the implication that the price of energy involves only the bill to consumers and industrialists. However, the price of energy is not only an economic cost, because security of supply has a strategic price and renewables have an environmental and distribution price in terms of countryside spoiled by wind turbines and transmission cables marching across the landscape. Wind turbines are by no means carbon neutral when one considers how they are built and how the electricity they generate is distributed. In the economic jargon, we must internalise the externalities.
	The overriding issue, which we must all take as a given regardless of which kind of generation we are considering, is safety. If one examines risk and safety in energy supply, whether one starts with wood, coal, oil, gas, wind, renewables or nuclear, one is left with the conclusion that there is always risk and danger. When advanced countries such as Finland have taken decisions, largely for strategic reasons, on renewing and extending nuclear generation, they have taken as a given the baseline of safety. Safety must be dealt with, acknowledged and ensured, because one can move forward on the basis of such a consensus, which is how we should proceed in this country.
	The Government are, of course, responsible for providing security of supply, meeting our environmental objectives, balancing a range of energy sources and maintaining efficiency of transmission. The national grid is based on the 19th-century plans that resulted in a 20th-century distribution system, which is no longer fit for purpose in many cases. We must recognise that point, which is why microgeneration is particularly significant.
	In 1970, the average household had seven electrical appliances; today, the average household has 47—in other words, we are very greedy for energy in this country. As we go out on our pre-Christmas binge for white goods and electronic goods, including plasma screens, which use four times as much electricity as anything else, we should bear in mind that we must examine our own navels. We should also remember that a UK citizen uses six times as much energy as an African citizen. We should examine our energy greed, because we can make a difference globally. We must put that argument to those who say, "It does not matter whether I do something good, because it will not make any difference in global terms." It will make a difference.
	Most hon. Members who have spoken believe that we need nuclear and renewables. I will not repeat those discussions, except to say that I happen to believe that we should invest much more in tidal flow generation, which is one of the great unknowns. If we run down our nuclear from current levels and replace it with gas, it will cancel out all the economies that we can achieve by being more sensible about our use of electricity, heat and transport as private citizens.
	What is the difference between consumers in France, England and Finland, when it comes to electricity generation? In France, people do not loathe nuclear electricity. Some 83 per cent. of French electricity is generated by nuclear power, and we know what happens in Finland. We must therefore differentiate base-led generation, embedded generation plans for CHP on a slighter larger industrial scale and the sort of microgeneration through which we can all make a major contribution.
	It is really important that we grasp the nuclear issue. Having studied nuclear energy for many years, and having visited French, Finnish and British nuclear plants, I have come to the conclusion that we need another generation of fission capacity. Nuclear fusion is the future. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), I have seen what is going on at Culham and examined the international thermo-nuclear experimental reactor project, which could result in zero radioactive waste if we have a fusion revolution that allows us to develop a hydrogen-based fuel economy for our country and the industrialised world.
	With regard to waste, it is imperative to distinguish the historical legacy of the defence nuclear industry and the first-time-round, experimental trialling of the early British civil nuclear programme from what might be produced in future. The two are as different as chalk and cheese. Over 50 years, a technological revolution has taken place. To use scare stories to imply that we must not move forward to a new generation of nuclear fission because of the problem that the Government are now tackling—for which I commend them—is to perpetrate a cruel deception on the people of this country. Of course we must decide on sites for deep geological burial and retrievability for at least 100 years. That technology is developing and improving, and is on trial in Finland now.
	The question of who pays is crucial. Future nuclear industry should not have a tax subsidy. There is no reason why it should. More than 400 nuclear plants are in operation around the world, and others are being built all the time, not just in China and India but elsewhere. The United States has a well proven system of financing for the treatment of nuclear waste for every kilowatt generated. That system is being adopted in Finland. The decommissioning costs must be met from the generation of funds invested for the future, whether privately or by the state.
	All of that is predicated on the continuing availability of the nuclear science, technology and engineering skills base in the United Kingdom. Science education is fundamental, and it is a major lack. I blame the Government for not giving sufficient attention to it over the past nine years. Only this weekend, I saw their television advertisements for science teachers, which are super. What a pity they did not run them nine years ago. What a pity that physics and chemistry departments have closed in our universities. How tragic it will be if we do not even have the skilled engineering manpower to dismantle existing nuclear power stations, let alone build a new generation.
	Education, not just in our schools and universities, but public education about energy supply—whether nuclear, renewable or both—will cost money. Spending by the taxpayer or private energy companies must be transparent and accountable. Money will be spent, and in large quantities. I maintain, however, that if that spending is transparent and accountable, it is not bribery. It is often alleged that if British Nuclear Fuels or anyone else spends money on visitors' centres, school packs or CD-ROMs, it is bribery. We must get away from that silly idea.
	In energy supply debates, I look for consensus between the political parties. The people of this country deserve that. There is a difference, however, between saying that nuclear energy is back on the agenda with a vengeance, and saying that it is a last resort. I hope that I can persuade those on my Front Bench to be a little more positive than they have been able to be. It is interesting that, whereas the Conservative party has said unequivocally that it supports, and will almost certainly replace, our nuclear deterrent, it cannot be as positive about nuclear energy for civilian use. I think that we shall have to move from that position as the argument develops. I hope that we do it with good grace, saying "Yes, we have listened to the arguments."
	The constituents to whom I have talked, especially the younger ones, now take it for granted that we will need a new generation of nuclear facilities. Only two weeks ago, when I addressed nearly 400 sixth-form students in Salisbury, I was asked directly for my view on such a "next generation". I gave my view, and I can only say that it received pretty universal acclaim and agreement.
	We have a generational problem here as well. I think that our electors, particularly young electors, see the virtues of trusting in the science, technology and engineering skills that can secure the future energy supply of the United Kingdom.

Mark Prisk: Today's debate has been timely and, indeed, informed. The Secretary of State opened by quoting his good friend the Chancellor, who apparently said today that the United Kingdom must be both pro-growth and pro-green—sentiments with which we agree. The Secretary of State went on to talk about gas prices and promised that Ofgem would monitor them very closely. We trust that it will do so, and we will hold him to that promise. He mentioned the fact that the White Paper, which was due, as he said, at the turn of the year, will appear in March. Clearly, climate change is delaying not just the seasons but Government publications.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) gave an excellent commentary on the Stern review. I confess that I have not read every one of the 700 pages of that document, and I trust that it was printed on recycled paper, but what is important is that the summary that we have been able to see in the House is thoughtful and considered. We on the Conservative Benches will wish to look at that with some care. My hon. Friend went on to give a thorough exposition of the emerging technologies for future power generation and how they can help both to reduce carbon emissions and to secure future energy supplies.
	The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) expressed a number of concerns. He had some serious concerns about the slow pace of the Government on renewables, but he is a loyal member of his party and I do not think that he wished to press his concerns too far.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) speaks, I believe, for the Liberal Democrats, and I must say that they got their money's worth this evening. He emphasised carbon-free generation and he was rather sceptical about quite a few of the technologies. He seemed to work his way through a number of reasons for various things not working, including fusion and carbon capture and storage.
	We heard a wide-ranging and interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). He committed himself to reduce his own energy consumption by, I believe, 20 per cent. as part of this week's Energy Saving Trust campaign. Good for him.
	I missed the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), which I regret because what I did hear was not only an informed speech but a balanced and excellent contribution, without wishing to embarrass him too much. His contributions show not only that he understands the subject but that he is able to express his points to those of us who are perhaps not as informed. That is one of his great successes. He particularly raised two points, and I hope that Minister will respond to them: first, the challenge of putting a price on carbon and, secondly, how we sort out the planning system in relation to that.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) set out his anti-nuclear credentials thoroughly and promoted the case for wind farms. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key)—sadly, he is not in his place at the moment—gave a typically robust and powerful case for making technology help to solve the problems in energy. Of course, as always, he is a powerful advocate of nuclear power.
	The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) wanted clean-coal technology to be given a chance. I suspect that the Minister listened carefully to his remarks. Last and by no means least, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) did a rare thing: he sat and listened to the debate and gave an intelligent and carefully reasoned response to the contributions of others. It was an excellent contribution and I am sure that it is one that the authorities have noted with care—that has got him worried now.
	Securing our national energy supply is, of course, going to be, as we have heard, one of the most significant challenges for this and future Governments. It is both an international and a domestic challenge. Internationally, the picture is one of growth in global demand outstripping supply, compounded by significant political risks in the energy-rich regions of the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said, last year alone the world's population grew by over 74 million people—that is 1 per cent. in 12 months. Meanwhile, the use of fossil fuels grows even faster—up 1.3 per cent. for oil, 3.3 per cent. for gas and 6.3 per cent. for coal. Looking further ahead, oil demand is predicted to reach 120 million barrels a day by 2025. China's demand alone will triple by then, never mind the impact of India or other rapidly advancing countries. Unfortunately, just as demand for energy is rising, so the levels of political uncertainty have increased. It is, as some have said, a rich irony that the easiest to reach supplies of fuel happen to be located in some of the most difficult areas politically. Geology and politics seem to have conspired against us. For example, today 58 per cent. of China's oil imports come from the middle east, and that is expected to rise to 70 per cent. by 2015. Thus the new engine of global growth is hugely dependent on the stability of the middle east. What happens will affect us all. Nor should we ignore the transit countries through which the gas must flow, or the sea lanes through which the oil must be shipped. Choke points include the straits of Hormuz, the Panama canal and the Bab el Mandeb strait, at the entrance to the Red sea. The security of those transit routes and oil refineries will affect our energy supplies now and in the future. Ironically, it was Osama bin Laden who recently called oil refineries the "hinges" of the world economy. We must ensure that they remain open.
	It is that international combination of economic and geopolitical risks that has changed the debate about supplying our future energy needs. The recent surge in demand for gas—and the accompanying soaring gas prices—is a symptom of what we face.
	The truth is that in the UK the margin of spare capacity in our system has narrowed in recent years and, as we have heard today, is set to shrink further and faster. We have heard from several hon. Members how the current generation of nuclear power stations is coming to the end of its life, leaving just Sizewell B open by the mid-2020s. The recent news about Hinkley Point B suggests that we may not even have that long. Some experts are predicting that by 2015 up to 30 GW of current generation may be lost—the equivalent of a third of our current demand. Given that, does the Minister still believe that his policies will close that gap? In which year does he expect to see new generation plant first come on stream?
	During the debate we have heard about the need for a comprehensive approach to our future energy supply. We need to both diversify our sources of energy and ensure that we use it more efficiently.

Michael Connarty: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his line of thought, which I am following, but I anticipated that he would tell us about the Opposition's policies on the nuclear question. I am the Secretary of the all-party group on nuclear energy. I was anti-nuclear when I entered the House, but the desperate plight caused by climate change has changed my mind. However, the Conservatives appear unwilling to take the step necessary to commit us to rebuilding our nuclear capacity at least to what it was before—some 29 per cent.

Malcolm Wicks: It is our ambition to develop in due course an international emissions trading scheme. I discussed that with the nuclear industry only this morning. I fully understand the point.
	The second and final way in which I want to help the Conservative party is by asking Conservative Members, with all due respect, as they say on these occasions, to try to think through the logic—or the illogic—or the Tory's party's policy on renewables. I read the documents. The interim findings of the Conservative party's energy review, from 6 July this year, state:
	"We therefore believe it is now vital to give green energy a chance to demonstrate its potential"—
	so far so good—
	"on a level playing field with other sources of electricity".
	It seems to me that that is a non sequitur wrapped up in a misunderstanding. If one really wants to demonstrate the potential, one has to have a mechanism such as the renewables obligation—by all means, a reformed one. If the Conservatives are seriously talking about a level playing field, and they understand the meaning of the term, that must mean, vis-à-vis nuclear for example, abolishing a renewables obligation. I do not know whether that is the policy, but I genuinely think that there is confusion. There is also confusion about nuclear. So, there is more work to be done. Perhaps that work could start in the final minutes of the debate.